II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm.
This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and
rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an
external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the
scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a
technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the
subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless,
completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly
intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with
and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It
was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own
hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things,
attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently
ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and
material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the
relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept
the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to
economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the
lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this
leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the
false notion that “an infinite quantity of energy and resources are
available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the
negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily
absorbed”.[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem from the
tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science
and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of
individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this
model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the
deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a
reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We
have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they
create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping
social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of
certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental
are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing
technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable. The
technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult
to do without its resources and even more difficult to utilize them
without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become
countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly
independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and
make us all the same. Technology tends to absorb everything into its
ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology “know full
well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor
for the well-being of the human race”, that “in the most radical sense
of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all”.[87] As a result, “man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature”.[88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one’s alternative creativity are diminished.
Has Wall Street created an "Overlord" that the West cannot abandon.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and
political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology with a
view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on
human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The lessons of the
global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning
all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration. Some circles
maintain that current economics and technology will solve all
environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms,
that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply
by market growth. They are less concerned with certain economic theories
which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual
operation in the functioning of the economy. They may not affirm such
theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by
showing no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better
distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of
future generations. Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing
profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral
human development and social inclusion.[89]
At the same time, we have “a sort of ‘superdevelopment’ of a wasteful
and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the
ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation”,[90]
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and
social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures,
which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
