Questions We Should Have Asked About TechnologyBy Heather Callaghan Afterward, the people who are the most affected by the cozy relationship between government and the corporatocracy are told it was oversight, but now theres no putting the genie back in the bottle. Jerry Mander, the former ad executive who brought you the FourArguments for the Elimination of Television disagrees. The genie can be captured by public discourse and empowerment. Last October, when he spoke among other scholars at Techno-Utopianism and the Fate of the Earth, he wanted to bring you these questions we should haveasked about technology we can start now. For the record, this writer does not align with every stance Mander takes personally and absolutely wants greater advancements that create high speed travel, safe water collection and treatment, healing, help with disabilities, oceanic cleanup, agricultural developments and anything that removes human suffering. I dont believe in going backward or that slower or more difficult means better. Skeptics of the elitist technocracy want people to know that real, stunning advancements are doable but are purposely suppressed. Were getting the raw deal. Hearing between the lines, one could see Mander hinting at why this technology? His statements and questions about technology are cleverly woven into this under-the-radar speech. Much like his writing, it gains momentum until the final crescendo. He argues why corporations like Monsanto did not need a seat at the workshop in order to hear the other side. He points to the dark side of practices such as geoengineering and genetic engineering of humans. One of the most important questions should always be, Who benefits? In FourArguments, Jerry recounts his initial fascination with the power of television imagery during his 15 years in public relations and advertising until it turned into a gnawing concern and then horror. During that time, I learned it is possible to speak directly into peoples heads, and then like some otherworldly magician, leave images inside that can cause people to do what they might otherwise have not thought to do, he said. When he tried to use it as a benevolent force for good, he realized whose technology it really was and its resulting global unification. In the video above, he reminds us that what we are led to believe is dumb, stupid or harmless is actually a powerful controlling force. It is naive to think intelligence protects us because, advertising has nothing to do with intelligence. Although it is impossible to get rid of the media imagery and messages weve been stitched with growing up, the dark side of globalist technology is something with which he talks about contending. What he leaves out is just as powerful what would the world be like if true innovation werent stifled? Recent posts byHeather Callaghan: 