Fortunately it all turned out ok, and Professor Seedhouse gave a very interesting and provocative presentation. Having explained how Google and Facebook know pretty much everything about us, he argued that the internet could, in fact be a tool to reinvigorate democracy, which, he says, has become trapped in a nineteenth century model in which men in suits who we've never met, meet in secret to make decisions that affect the rest of us. He sees the internet as a means to revolutionise this.
He designed and runs the Values Exchange, whose mission "is to promote real democracy, based on the informed, collective wisdom of whole populations. We believe everyone has the right to be part of serious debate about the issues that matter most to us."
His forums are places to explore what people think but, crucially, why; he is sceptical of opinion polls, which tell us nothing, and blogs with comments, which just list responses in chronological order which is actually pretty unhelpful, but believes that through the sharing of information of what motivates our ethical choices we can persuade and change the world for the better. More interesting, than, say, 'should gay marriage be allowed?', or 'should Australia take more asylum seekers?', are the order of priorities that people use to make these decisions - whose rights are paramount? What are the main principles involved? This data is the collected and represented in different and interesting ways. In being able to engage seriously large numbers of people, to represent their ethical choices in an easy format as his websites do, he believes that he can engage ordinary people in public debate in a new and invigorating way that can change society.
Whilst I find this interesting sociologically, e.g. trends of what any given sector of society might prioritise in their ethical frameworks are often curious, I'm left thinking "so what?". Knowing the principles of why others act, or, indeed, using the website to track my own motivational factors over many different dilemmas that I look at may be interesting, but it doesn't lead me to understand the foundations upon which my ethics should be built. Plus there's something suspiciously utilitarian about the whole enterprise (and I'm not a utilitarian), which is democracy's uncomfortable bedfellow.
To paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. I'm far from convinced that constant referenda is the ultimately desirable form of democracy; I vote for individuals whom I trust to make decisions on my behalf. If they fail, or if others put forward a better argument, I may vote for them. Whilst every social decision may indeed be ethical, it is certainly not practical that each individual should make it. That is the role of government.
Finally, to say that the internet is revolutionising the way we connect is true, and it may indeed be undermining the nation-state and the traditional democracies of the West. Whilst it has clearly played a key role in the Occupy protests and the Arab Spring, I would be interested to know how it is affecting India and - in particular - China, where far from undermining the nation-state it is used as a tool to enhance it; minus the democracy.
So that was Wednesday night; Thursday was Triple J's (Radio 1 equivalent in Australia) Tribute to Nick Cave concert at the Enmore Theatre in Newtown.
Whilst not particularly au fait with his oevre, it was a very entertaining and enjoyable evening - some top musicians performing, both domestic and international (Paul Kelly, the lead singers of Sparkadia, Blue Juice, Children Collide and the drummer from Spiderbait amongst them - aside from Paul Kelly, I hope those names mean something to someone over the age of 12) - and some fantastic and moving pieces of music. Oh dear, I can't help but sound like I'm such a Philistine.
No comments:
Post a Comment