On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> Aside from the obvious Orwellian overtones, and the equally obvious class
> considerations (how rich/poor will you have to be to enter such a world?)
"But, of course, *above all else*, we librarians have to work to prevent
that. The possibilities cannot be spoken of as "asides." [see below]
> this possible future is absolutely amazing. If we accept the possibility of
> this type of future
All I ask Jim, is that folks consider, as first priority, being
"absolutely" unwilling to accept the Orwellian and class considerations in
exchange for an otherwise "absolutely amazing" possible technical future.
It is simply a matter of a need to reorient priorities and how easily
specialists and readers can be seduced into ignoring those general matters
(like who runs the show and how) in favor of personal convenience,
entertainment, and profit.
> ...it is only logical to consider: how would libraries fit in
That consideration would be made easier if we consider how the *purpose*
of libraries would fit in and how "libraries" might evolve to meet that
social purpose under changing social conditions. Would that purpose be to
obviate the formation of an Orwellian, class-based society in the first
place by developing structures to always provide open, undoctored
information and means of interpreting it, or would it be to conform to the
dictates of the elite in order to survive?
> Some world such as this appears to be coming towards us sooner or later,
> whether we like it or not, ready-or-not.
This is an appropriate place to urge rhetorical caution, since the phrase
"world like this" has already been assigned various meanings, including
the suggestion that technological advancements might have to be
accompanied by Orwellian "overtones." Since we're seeing these overtones
now, such as in suggestions that public-controlled education (and
libraries?) be eliminated (and there can be difficulty in teaching "1984"
and evolution), a no-tolerance policy for Orwellian evolution needs to be
followed in practically all rhetoric.
> the woman walks into the store and the selection for her clothes has
> already been made based on her previous selections, the selections of
> people similar to her, and so on. The selection of the videos is based
> on their previous choices, correlated with the choices of similar
> people. The correct directions are based on all kinds of information
> coming from everywhere. Why would someone need a library for information
> in such a world?
Definitely more that a potential for an Orwellian world. The problem, if
one takes note of how easily the media and people in general can be
manipulated and made thoroughly self-interested, is that "directions"
coming from those having the most power to issue them (and enforce them)
would be those that would be followed. So, the question becomes: how will
"libraries" (in a modernized form) encourage their own use to perpetuate
fact, individuality, innovation, curiosity, skepticism and critical
thinking? To do that, and to perpetuate their own relevance beyond
supporting conformity, they will have to become proactive now.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Aug 15 2011 - 13:44:52 EDT