There’s an old story about a Roman emperor who was shown a wonderful harvesting machine. “It can do the work of at least 100 men,” the inventor proclaimed. “With just 10 of my machines, you would need no people at all to collect the harvest.”
The emperor congratulated him on his ingenuity, admired the machine —then ordered it destroyed utterly, the plans burned, and the inventor put to death. When the stunned inventor protested, the emperor said: “I must see that my people have work as well as bread.”
This story isn’t told to launch a Luddite attack on technology. Technology is great. What causes the problem is how it’s used—and that’s down to people.
Is it better to use our technology to make a few people very, very rich, even if the bulk have to work harder then ever? Or to allow more people to live good lives with less effort? The same technology can do either—but not both at the same time. It’s a matter of choice.
Elephants are large, slow, and live long lives. Shrews are small, incredibly fast and active, and die within two years or so. Giant tortoises move incredibly slowly and live for centuries. Nature has fixed a link between speed and shortness of life. In our rushed and harried world, we rely more and more on medical technology to fend off the diseases caused by the stress our lifestyle produces.
I wonder how healthy and extended people’s lives would be if we devoted our know-how to that objective, instead of patching up our walking wounded to squeeze a few more dollars out of them?
No comments:
Post a Comment