However, not every forecast made by Stephenson in the novel is quite so far fetched. With an increasing dependence on technology as a mean of global connection, interaction, trade, etc. the idea of the Metaverse is not that far removed from the Internet we use today. The increasing intensification of virtual realities as means of global communication seems plausible to me. Another plot theme suggested by Stephenson in the novel relating to technology and global interactivity that seems to have a more realistic base is the idea of a mix of technological and biological weaponry (ie: the Snow Crash virus) as a potential form of terrorism. With the redefinition of forms of terrorism in recent history, who is to say that a culmination of tactics involving technology are not to be a part of the near future? There definitely seems to be some degree of merit to these theories proposed by Stephenson in his science-fiction bestseller.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Snow Crash: Forecast or Fiction?
In reading a science fiction novel, it is easy to get caught up in the flash and cutting-edge projections of the future without questioning the legitimacy of the author's theories about the future. In Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, the primary characteristic of his future world which I found difficult to entertain was the privatization of every former government-run body. Though global corporations are on the rise today, and intensifying with the process of globalization, the ability of these multinational corporations to operate social programs and infrastructural regimes seems unlikely given the prevalence of the welfare state today. While I understand that Neal's extension of corporate domination to highways, prisons, security, even courts, is likely a reflection of his concerns over the rise of capitalism and power players in the global economy, I would argue that this projection of the future is implausible. Were these aspects of society to be run by private corporation, they would be riddled with corruption and inaccessible to consumers who lacked the means to afford services that had previously been provided by a federal government. This system would not last long, and I think that Neal's predictions here are overstated and exaggerated beyond the point of feasibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its interesting that the three blogger this week and myself all thought that the metaverse was the most plausible and that the absolute privatization of government institutions was the most plausible. There is probably some deeper meaning to all of us choosing the same themes. Maybe its a product of our similar ages, where all four of us grew up with the internet in our lives, so its easy for us to comprehend total synchronicity between the internet and reality. Similarly, we are all college aged students at a large public university, in a very blue state, studying GVPT, which would indicate that we would all likely be more liberal and less in favor of the privatization of government institutions. Though I can only speak for myself, our demographic similarities would suggest this was likely.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou bring up such a good point that I hadn't though of before. The fact that most of us probably grew up with access to the internet does change our perspective of how strongly of a role the internet will play in the future. I do think however that the importance of the internet and its future possibilities is not lost on many. A child who grew up in a remote village and recently was given access to the internet would understand that it was a powerful thing. Perhaps more so than anyone of us would.
DeleteNoah the fact that we all share a common background in a lot of ways could definitely be the reason that we all feel the metaverse is plausible in some capacity. Also, like Grace said we all grew up with the internet so it makes this an even more legitimate possibility. Kids that are growing up today are even more likely to feel this way since they are growing up with more technology than even we did.
DeleteGood point Noah, especially on the similar backgrounds.
DeleteGrace,
You don't have to live in a secluded village not to be a digital native, so to speak, you can also have come across the internet for the first time in the 6th grade and not regularly until College. Like your professor...
Noah, I think addressing our similarities in demographics and resource access is a really interesting approach to this topic. I would have to agree with you that the large majority of us are in favor of the more liberal constructions of the novel, while hesitant about the projections of privatization of government.
DeleteGrace, I also think that like Professor Shirk said, the Internet is not something that people have a universal access to or appreciation for. While we have all been socialized and educated in a system where the Internet is seen as a highly effective tool, someone of an older generation may not see the Metaverse as a likely forecast due to the limited role of the Internet in their own upbringing.
One thing that struck me here was that your claim that privatization wouldn't happen like Stephenson says it would deals with the welfare state. You ask who would provide social welfare services? However, you will notice that for the most part they are not really a part of the society that Hiro and co. live in. Is it possible that in a privatized world there are no social welfare services like we know them today? Would it really be so inconceivable that they go away since the welfare state in the US has been receding since the 1980s with little public/voting backlash?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, what if they were just not there? Would there really be a big backlash, especially if the US gov't were to basically collapse?
Professor Shirk, I think that with the privatization of government, the welfare state would disappear entirely - which is exactly why it will not happen. Too many parties are entirely dependent on the welfare services which the state provides for them to disintegrate entirely. While I agree that these measures have been steadily declining since the twentieth century, I do not think there would ever truly come a point in which the general public said, "okay, we can do away with government and all of the services it provides," in exchange for a system that is entirely privatized.
DeleteAs I do also agree on all of your points on the meta verse, privatization, and terrorism is the future, I can see Professor Shirk's point. There could be a slow or rapid movement towards privatization. Corporations have a huge foot hold in the economy and in politics globally and privatization in certain sectors has benefitted corporations and will continue to benefit them in the future. Also, a lot of countries governments' in developing countries, especially in Latin America, have in the past privatized for economic purposes to open their own economy. For example Paulette L. Stenzel states in the Encyclopedia of Business, " From 1989 to 1994, President Carlos Salinas privatized 252 state companies including major banks and TELMEX, the government-owned company that monopolized telephone services." Privatization could be conceivable and it is happening in some aspects. Maybe we have been influenced by our demographic similarities inside our own country?
ReplyDeleteRiannon, I like what you are getting at here. While I think the idea of things becoming more privatized is likely, I do not think that an entire change in the ownership of the state system is likely to occur in complete favor of corporations. It remains to be seen what will happen, and while I think a gradual increase is likely, I do not think the total eradication of government is likely to occur.
Delete