Since summertime is conference time, I wandered the halls of the Washington Hilton Hotel in mid-July taking in the atmosphere of the World Future Society conference. Futurists from around the world had ideas about the way education, economics, transportation, and even crime might be different in the 21st century — about the ways technology will transform everything from the way we communicate to the way we count.
Absent from much of the discussion was the future of race relations and the civil rights movement, and few had explored the question of whether technology will exacerbate or eliminate tension between African-Americans and others in society.
In casual conversation, some futurists shared that they think income, not race, will make more of a difference in the 21st century. People with money will have access to technology and to change, while those who have little money will have even less access.
That hit home for me when I shared a podium with a banker who asserted that “everybody” would bank by computer by the year 2000. With more than a third of white families having home computers, while just 10 percent of Black households and even fewer Latino households have them, exactly how is “everybody” going to bank by computer if “everybody” doesn’t have access to the technology? After some dialogue, the banker acknowledged that when he said “everybody” he really didn’t mean “everybody.” He meant “everybody who had enough money to afford a computer and therefore to add to a bank’s bottom line.”
Indeed, banks have tried their best to get away from serving customers with little money. The banks that used to offer cheap accounts for children have eliminated “kiddie accounts.” Automatic teller services, once encouraged, now often cost a dollar or so per use. Other banking services, once free, now often carry a fee. And “everybody” is going to bank by computer for yet another fee!
Of course, everybody could bank by computer if computers were more accessible. If, for example, computer stations were available at more public libraries, schools, and community centers, then some of those who can’t afford home computers could still have access to the Internet and other interactive services, and, perhaps, bank by mail. But the issue of access is not at the top of the list in terms of the new technology. Engineers are making computers faster and lighter, but ethicists are not involved in making computers more available to a broader range of people. And people are talking about policy in the broadest of terms, talking about “everybody” having access to a technology that many can simply not afford.
The ways the new technology will change our communications system is also interesting. When a ride was late a few weeks ago, I tried to track the driver down by walking to a pay phone to make a call. I was frostily informed by a rather myopic young woman that my trek to the pay phone was not necessary because “everybody” had a cellular telephone. To be sure, cellular telephones are incredibly common on the East Coast, but there are some people who have never seen a cell phone, much less owned one. Between the cell phone, beeper, computer, and pager, it is possible to “be in touch” with “everybody” at all times. We can get information, but few have focused on the quality of information. So skinheads and members of the militia can put recipes for making bombs on the Internet and instigate church burnings through electronic hate. But there is little communication that is a force for good, instead of a force for evil.
