Imagine the car industry would tomorrow set up a similar campaign as the UK music industry did in the Eighties with their “home taping is killing music” campaign.

This automobile campaign’s tagline could then be: “Car sharing is killing engineering”, possibly re-using a similar black-and-white composite stencil visual, complete with a jolly roger featuring a car silhouette as the skull (resembling an old Morris, maybe?), and depicting a queue of people standing in line to get in for a ride, forming the shape of one of the bones.

You wouldn’t buy that for a second, or would you?

A lot of discussions about “disruptive technologies” are entirely missing the point. I always feel reminded of Peter F. Drucker’s preface to the German edition of Marshall McLuhan’s “Understanding Media” (Econ, 1992). In there, Drucker describes McLuhan visiting him once after returning from a conference in Toronto:
“What was it that people talked about during the conference, Marshall?”, I asked.
“Alas, about automation”, was the reply. “You know”, he said, “it was just as if the coachmen had called in for a meeting around 1905 to discuss the automobile’s implications on society. One professor holds an adept lecture about the occupational re-training of horses. Another presents statistical materials to prove that the automobile will increase the demand for horses (and their value) massively; as one indeed would need so many more of them to pull automobiles from the ditches.”

Whenever the implication of any technology is discussed, we fall into the trap of seeing it from the viewpoint of today’s wishful thinking, it seems.

That is the precise reason why our cars are still burning fossil fuel (instead of using clean, cheap nuclear power, as the Fifties saw it coming); this is why we still don’t have colonies on the Moon or on Mars (as it turned out that generating perpetuous economic wealth has its limits, and space travel still is very expensive), and this is why genetically modified crops and seeds are discussed controversially: they increase the yield, but they lead to area-wide impoverishment (as media had it recently: in certain federal stats in India, for example).

Instead, we got Facebook.
And this is where I today found a printable leaflet listing companies that are using genetically modified products for producing comestible goods.

The older I get, the more the patterns seem to repeat: “Give up smoking, as it is bad for you.”, “Give up smoking this brand, as the manufacturing company is supporting the Ku-Klux-Klan.”, “Don’t smoke this particular sub brand, as they are infusing chemicals likely to increase addiction.”, “Stop buying this brand of Mineral Water, as they are polluting the environment.”, “Stop buying that brand of Mineral Water, as they are supporting the Nationalist party.”, “Stop buying this brand of Mineral Water, as they are simply taking water from a river, bottle it, and sell it with an outrageous profit margin.”,

How is any of that any different from “Boycott this product, as it is bad for producers of food products elsewhere.”, “Don’t buy products from this company, as they are exploiting their workers.”, “Don’t use this digital media channel, as artists are not properly remunerated”. “Don’t do this.”, “Don’t do that.” And, naturally: “I’ve got the best reasons ever for you to comply with my demand.”
No shit, Sherlock!?

What we are increasingly seeing is the dismantling of any technology, product, development, and formerly masked or hidden influence, wrenched to the light of day, and mercilessly attributed to malicious individuals or groups that are in for screwing over an entire society. Personal contribution is restricted to not falling into the traps that are meant to screw us over.

Look at the campaign mentioned at the beginning of this article with a an Analyst’s eyes: the grammatical form of a Gerundium is indicating a bad deed that is undergoing currently (“home taping”), and has bestial consequences (“killing”) for a widely appreciated cultural expression (“music”). Upon closer scrutiny: this statement does without a single concrete imputation.

Contrast this with current anti-piracy campaigns, starting with “You wouldn’t steel a handbag”, employing “your guilt” as an unspoken motivator, very much tailored to the needs of an individualized society that bases itself on the virtue of “owning property”, and on “not violating assets owned by others”.

Here’s where the circle closes, in real life: I only use my car twice a week for an hour each. That leaves it idle for about 166 hours per week (heck! That is about as much as I go to work in a month!).
My car insurance, on the other hand, is giving me a substantial discount for not letting anybody except myself and my family members living in the same household use my car. As this car is already a substantial amount of years old, and I barely use it anyway, I may consider not to replace it when it finally gives in to the rather harsh conditions of Finnish winter.

But: would I be doing right? Wouldn’t it be unfair towards the workers in Romania that work on the car manufacturer’s assembly line to provide their family with food? While I may still be under the impression that this car is “Made in Germany”, in order to support the economy of my home country, not having witnessed the employment of cheap labour in order to maintain profits?

Continuing that same thought: Would it be fair to buy this car second-hand online from a private seller, depriving the car salesman from a nearby car dealership their fair provision he is so depending on to pay his mortgage for the family home and the well-being of three children? And while we’re at it: would it be fair that I pay my new car straight from my savings, and not taking a loan from my local bank that would provide my clerk with a provision so essential to pay off his debt from her recent divorce?

Bottom line (tl;dr): it is not technology that cold-heartedly kills something precious someone else has been just ensconcing themselves in. It is not just the bad, greedy fellas either.
It is the bad habit of the prevailing idea that nothing should change while the world around us is modernizing and improving itself towards the greater good, so it could provide us with a better future for ourselves and our loved ones without demanding any contribution from our side. “Common morale” has turned into a quite bad adviser for how the future shall look, it seems.

And despite me feeling truly sorry for the radio star: I recently read on a blog that these days, he’s doing paintings. To his very own surprise, he can make a decent living out of it. And is happy.