Review of the report of Pekka Himaneni 2004 at the Finnish Parliament
At all times a person has sought to improve the quality of his life. Irrespective of religion or nationality, a person wants to be in more comfortable conditions. In my opinion, Pekka Himanen does not just want, but also tries to bring society closer to this state. The
article says that the information society can be defined as a creative
society based on interaction, for which the most important aspect is not
new technologies, but a new world view of things and use. As
I thought Pekka's thoughts are aimed at creating an ideal society that
can support each other and help in different fields of science,
economics and labor. In his opinion, the information economy relies on the growth of productivity, based on innovation.
With his reasoning, Pekka brings people closer to an ideal model of society that will not only exist well but also flourish. As I thought pekka criticizes the current state of affairs, where society lives by the laws of "every man for himself" and "the strongest survives." Tells that if you want everything can be changed for the better with the help of information technology. In the light of these changes, "the information society can be defined as a society in which the quality of life, as well as the prospects for social change and economic development, increasingly depend on information and its exploitation. In such a society, the standards of life, forms of work and leisure, the education system and the market are significantly influenced by advances in information and knowledge. "
One of the most unpleasant aspects of this type of society is the loss of the sustainability situation of the information society. Due to the increasing role of information, small groups or commonwealths can have a huge impact on all people ...
It seems to me that in his arguments Pekka is very mistaken, since he speaks of people and peoples as a whole, excluding the factor of the individual. He speaks of a herd led by a shepherd, not taking into account the difference in the mentality of different peoples and their values. It seems to me that only a strong and brutal leader can lead to such a state.
Having received freedom and wealth and health, people will begin to be lazy and about no society in which the majority of workers are engaged in production we can not speak. Of course, the effective information interaction of people and their access to global information resources will raise the qualifications and general education of a person, but also increase the risks of sabotage or terror, where certain groups of people will try to take power in their hands. The development of e-democracy and the information economy will only exacerbate this action by making such people elusive.
With huge strides, humanity is approaching the model of the information society by itself and it seems to me that it is not necessary to increase the pace artificially. Technologies are developing and everything will happen by itself. It seems to me that the main task of people at the moment should not be the total immersion of mankind in innovation and information technology, but an increase in the level of protection associated with all kinds of influence on people, both individuals and society as a whole.
With his reasoning, Pekka brings people closer to an ideal model of society that will not only exist well but also flourish. As I thought pekka criticizes the current state of affairs, where society lives by the laws of "every man for himself" and "the strongest survives." Tells that if you want everything can be changed for the better with the help of information technology. In the light of these changes, "the information society can be defined as a society in which the quality of life, as well as the prospects for social change and economic development, increasingly depend on information and its exploitation. In such a society, the standards of life, forms of work and leisure, the education system and the market are significantly influenced by advances in information and knowledge. "
One of the most unpleasant aspects of this type of society is the loss of the sustainability situation of the information society. Due to the increasing role of information, small groups or commonwealths can have a huge impact on all people ...
It seems to me that in his arguments Pekka is very mistaken, since he speaks of people and peoples as a whole, excluding the factor of the individual. He speaks of a herd led by a shepherd, not taking into account the difference in the mentality of different peoples and their values. It seems to me that only a strong and brutal leader can lead to such a state.
Having received freedom and wealth and health, people will begin to be lazy and about no society in which the majority of workers are engaged in production we can not speak. Of course, the effective information interaction of people and their access to global information resources will raise the qualifications and general education of a person, but also increase the risks of sabotage or terror, where certain groups of people will try to take power in their hands. The development of e-democracy and the information economy will only exacerbate this action by making such people elusive.
With huge strides, humanity is approaching the model of the information society by itself and it seems to me that it is not necessary to increase the pace artificially. Technologies are developing and everything will happen by itself. It seems to me that the main task of people at the moment should not be the total immersion of mankind in innovation and information technology, but an increase in the level of protection associated with all kinds of influence on people, both individuals and society as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment