Will Hutton has an article in the Guardian called 2006: a vintage year for ideas that will change our world that is right on the money about the importance of that triumph of free expression, ‘Web 2.0’. Or as I would put it, the web is the tool that will break the old meta-contextual basis of old thinking… and then the rest of Hutton’s article then piles on wave after wave of ‘old think’ completely locked into the orthodoxy of a statist meta-context.
For two or three decades, economists and philosophers have questioned whether technology and rising wealth automatically mean greater well-being. In 2006, we finally realised that we are too inattentive to what makes us happy, a crucial step forward. Happiness is about earning the esteem of others, behaving ethically, contributing selflessly to human betterment and assuaging the need to belong. We have finally understood it is not economic growth that delivers these results – it is the way we behave. David Cameron caught the mood by saying that the object of the next Tory government would be greater well-being. The Observer published Professor Richard Layard’s Depression Report, arguing that because one in six of us suffers from anxiety or depression, the greatest contribution the government could make to promoting well-being is to prioritise the improvement of mental-health care.
Hutton quotes Richard Layard as if his conclusions and support for some very creepy totalitarian policies are self-evident and widely accepted outside the Benthamite circles in the two main UK political party HQs, which is not the case (although perhaps his use of ‘we’ means ‘Guardian & Independent readers like me’). Moreover it has probably not occurred to Hutton (i.e. he is locked onto meta-contextual assumptions that society must rotate around the state) as it is clearly an axiom for him that ‘well-being’ is something within the government’s power to dispense, that perhaps it is the decay of civil society and growth of the state, rather than a lack of ‘correct’ state policies at imposing happiness, that might be the problem. My view is that the likes of Dave Cameron can only be a solution to the purported ‘crisis of unhappiness’ if they all start acting like lemmings and go jump off a high cliff. Seeing that would certainly make me very happy.
But the web is indeed the future, not the Tory or Labour parties, nor the Guardian or Telegraph or BBC. Why? Because there are inherent dis-economies of scale when it comes to the web. By this I mean I can set up Samizdata and the Guardian can set up their own blogs (and fine worthwhile blogs they are… the Guardian is really one of the few newspapers in the world which really ‘gets’ the Internet), but in spite of their brand and wealth, it costs me a tiny fraction ‘per eyeball’ to get hundreds of thousands of readers per month compared to them. Sure, more people read their website than read Samizdata but in terms of bang-for-buck, I win hands down and a lot of people do read us… and there are a lot more blogs than newspapers. Likewise a worthy outfit like 18 Doughty Street can put together excellent podcasts and do top class vlogging, but a significant cost and investment in infrastructure and salaries… and Brian Micklethwait can put up very effective podcasts for more or less nothing.
The implication of this ‘dis-economy of scale’ is something that will have little effect in the short run but will change everything in the long run. It means that although the Internet can be used by huge corporations and even huger governments, individuals motivated by something other than accountants have intrinsic advantages. Most importantly I think this points the way to how civil society will eventually redress the balance of power vis a vis the state and those who feed off the state, and abruptly reverse the trends of last century of moving towards Rousseau’s goal of suppressing the free and several interactions of civil society and replacing them with politically mediated regulatory formulae.
Now that is future-think.
Very inspiring message, Perry. Roll on 2007.
Absolutely, Hutton demonstrates his authoritarianism by dictating what is supposed to make people happy, implicitly dismissing ant concept of individualised motivation.
What I find heartening is that is now clear that the web is starting to adopt a role of “keeping the bastards honest”. The big guys are trying to deal with this by dismissing bloggers as skill less amateurs but this is naught but an arrogant first cut response. It doesn’t matter what the size of the research team, or how well a journalist is briefed, there will always be people out there who know more on a topic than any journalist can ever know, people who live, eat and breath the topic on a daily basis. Some of these will keep blogs, and some of those will even be able to write. If an error is interesting enough the facts can be all over the net within hours. Once an error is spotted no news organisation, regardless of size, will be able to compete against the resources that the individual actors on the web will be able to bring to bear.
“the greatest contribution the government could make to promoting well-being is to prioritise the improvement of mental-health care.”
Yeah, that’s it: put more people on Prozac, and Ritalin and such “psychotic” drugs, and you solve mankind’s “unhappiness” problem. All people will be happy; zombies, but happy.
That’s Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World !
We are well on our way there already, the other day there was a big article in the NY Times about millions of American kids who are regularly give multiple pshychotic drugs… must be terribly happy these kids…
If you have the capacity to make videos you can stick them on YouTube and then link to them from wherever you like, without needing to pay for lots of storage space. You don’t need the sort of resources available to 18 Doughty Street.
David Wilcox does this quite regularly, interviewing people working in community organisations (although he uploads the videos to his own site)
This is just too good. When a party leader says that his objective will be to deliver “well-being” (or anything else which has been carefully defined so as to be incapable of objective measurement), it arouses suspicions that he doesn’t expect to accomplish much where that oudated but eminently measurable “technology and rising wealth” is concerned.
If wealth doesn’t contribute to happiness, why do so few rich people give away their money and embrace (relative) poverty?
We actually have a counterexample to Mr. Hutton’s point right here. The technology of the internet, and the ability to afford a connection to it, are right now providing several people with the happiness and well-being of making fun of his prissy article.
Well-being.
Ah, a new world-saving philosophy, apart from over 2000 years of consideration.
And despite it being Christmas, the 2000+ is not the obvious one.
Best regards
ILLITERACY or half-reading are changing the world, because its demography is more dynamic than ours, and more effective than our improvements on the net.
In Nigeria, the poor run televisions rather than fridges with the little petrol they can get, because it’s more exciting to them. Do they wish to run computers ? Apart from a few girls trying to emigrate by marrying an eligible passport holder.
Internet has changed my life and millions of others. But finding my way on the net, through attractive and clever pages about finance, music and vintage designs that I thought unreachable – such as Trifari jewels -, I don’t feel the excitement I used to have reading child books, pretending to hold a grocery store or actually trying a new dress on.
Third world people are eager than most of us to start businesses and build fortunes. And they are competent enough for their vast and chaotic networks, now dealing anything in Western cities.
We learn a lot on Internet, but we can’t get the will to make anything out of it. Besides, it doesn’t give us any credibility while talking to the majority of the Westerners, made of non-readers. And it disconnects us from the basic feelings of the credulous crowds.
I can’t see what part philosophers will play in such a world ? Perry, I’m not sure I understand what you wrote about Rousseau. But maybe he could have been a respected blogger, because he was a lonely man who’s best connection was his maid, and he can’t even be believed to have put their five new-borns in an orphanage (as he claimed in his writings). He had no heirs, like many westerners of nowadays. But his spiritual heirs are still promoting psychotropics at school and at university. He must one of the reasons why France comes first is the consumption of these drugs.
Is it really what we will do on the Net that will change the world, if billions of men don’t bother to put their little share of energy in that economy, or if a small but sufficient number of them don’t want us to develop this way ?
A very optimistic post. Would that I could share that optimism.
State educational systems teach collectivist ideology from early childhood. Private institutions are little better, as teacher certification requires passage through the same collectivist-producing process. The MSM, popular culture, and the increasing power of bureaucrats in every corner of life continue to re-inforce the message. If it doesn’t take, they offer Therapy (Read: Re-education). Throughout life, the population is kept firmly in the grip of the Collective by dependence on the welfare state.
The principles and philosophies which made the rise of free and prosperous societies possible are denigrated as retrograde elitism, selfishness, and greed. That is, if they’re discussed at all.
Yes, the Web allows people who do understand the difference between liberty and serfdom to attempt to reach these people. But how many in our societies are even capable of understanding the concept of Liberty?
We have the technology. We even have some wonderful forums. But we are so few. The Collectivist message is ubiquitous, and it’s the same as that of the Borg.
We are voices in the wilderness.
Drat. Now I’m depressed. I sure hope your take on this is right and I’m wrong. Time will tell.
While I believe the internet has fantastic potential, I think that we are dreaming if we believe that it will be a vehicle for social change in the short term. Too many people do not have access, are not interested and have other priorities, like surviving. I mean the most successful commercial models for the internet are porn and gambling. Too many blogs and thinking web sites are targetted to the same audience.
– I take it, what makes him happy is projecting his definition of “happiness” on everybody else will-they, nil-they, with fines and administrative prison terms for the laggards and doubters to his vision of mankind’s utopia, at last.
A very old problem, that I suspect won’t go away in 2007. Still, we can hope.
A Happy New Year, all!
Maybe it’s not the total message of the original (I don’t know); however, I thought it apposite concerning strength in (seeming) weakness: God Bless the Grass
Best regards
And the article he said… “The implication of this ‘dis-economy of scale’ is something that will have little effect in the short run but will change everything in the long run”
So I guess you agree.
Myself I reckon the “long run” will be a lot sooner that most people think.
Oh gimme a break. If you’ve got a phone line, you have access. Most “poor” families in the western world spend more on video rentals or beer than it costs per month to get on the internet. More important, most families in the UK are not really poor objectively. We have poor people but we are not a poor country. If someone isn’t on-line, it’s probably cos they’re not interested, not that they don’t have “access”.
Within five years that number will be tiny as you might as well not be interested in “transport” or “shopping” or “entertainment” or “news”. Soon you will have to use the internet if you want to find the good shit in modern society with the “long tail” an all that.
Even in low income households (like mine until real recent), “survival” isn’t really an issue. We need more money to live the way we want to, that’s for sure, but even a shop worker like me can afford a poxy internet connection. I’d go mad without it.
CFM – I know where you’re coming from, when you consider the enormity of it, there’s no question it’s downright disheartening.
Having said that, I’ve found that the best remedy to that sort of thinking is shift my thinking from a global to local (or personal) level. I can’t fix the world but I can control me. I can resolve to never relent in my personal opposition to collectivism. I will not let idiotic/false statements be made in my presence without (politely) challenging them. I will never appear to acquiesce to ideas I find repugnant.
It’s cliched, but it’s better to be part of the solution than part of the problem. We’re right, they’re wrong and if have to fight them in perpetuity so be it. Never fucking yield.