AT a recent conference in Europe a guest speaker stated that we do not want the mindless march of technology taking over the world, so it must be regulated and controlled. This is an interesting point of view because we are, and always have been, subject to the mindless march of evolution, the chaos of solar storms and weather systems. Bluntly, Mother Nature does not give a fig for us, our society, art, mathematics, engineering, technology or, indeed, any other life form. So what is so special about technology, and why should it be singled out for control?

Personally, I cannot conceive why we should want to slow down or try to control our progress. History tells us that all past attempts to do so have led to human tragedies like the Dark Ages, holy wars, crop failures, or worse, the collapse of complete countries and civilisations. We are surfing a wave of change that is getting bigger and faster than ever before, with advantages and potential risks that are difficult to understand fully and to quantify. The key problem is one of engineering the necessary social and institutional change to assimilate such rapid advance. This is increasingly problematic because the scale and speed represent a threat to employment, companies, the power and influence of institutions, the seat of local and national governments.

It is not by accident that we now have individuals who have amassed more personal wealth than some small nations. It is by the hand of technology, and it is a trend that may be exacerbated by the few embracing and exploiting technology and the majority turning their backs to concentrate on an increasingly irrelevant past. This, not technology itself, is the key danger.

It seems to be a natural reaction of our species to be fearful of change, and especially technology-based change. This is principally down to ignorance rather than rational or informed reasoning. The fallacies relating to the security and pornography risks on the Internet are a good example. These two features dominate the press and political thinking to promote the notion that controls are needed. But the Net is predominantly used for good, by inherently good people, though like all societies it has no-go areas and villains. Security and policing it to protect the individual are easier in a world of bits if we embrace the options and take the initiative. But if we hold back, then the villains will win.

Recent advances reported in the press have featured life-restoring electronic implants that overcome nervous-system-related diseases. Almost the entire debate promoted by the Homo ludditus group of objectors has centred on this being unnatural. Well, pacemakers, aspirin, blood transfusions and surgery of all forms are unnatural, too. Such arguments would see us leaving the sick and ailing to suffer and die.

Then of course there is the loony fringe who see the potential to control people with such implants. Well, such a facility would have many positive aspects, too. Having a medical check-up and being reprogrammed on the move would save the health service a small fortune. Come to think of it, so would the tagging of criminals, cars, trucks and containers.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is:
http://cochrane.org.uk