TECHNOLOGY is like sex: you can read about it, you can look at the pictures, you can even watch the movies, but until you have tried it you can't decide if it is for you or not. So I watch with interest as the technologically celibate pontificate on the pros, cons and dangers of something they have never experienced. The innovation of the Internet and its enthusiastic embrace by America seems to promote one European talking shop after another. The predominate focus seems to be on the use and abuse by people and not the commercial or societal advantages. Well, there is much more to come. I would suggest that governments need a big picture and not a series of worrying and alarmist reports about health, security, business and societal dislocation risks.

So what is the next big deal? Well, it has to be the notion of zero government involvement and intervention. Two states in America are actively considering a total move out of control and regulation on all forms of electronic networking and trade. Could this be the end game for our species? After all, we started with total freedom and migrated through dictatorship, communism and capitalism. Capitalism is the current clear victor, and in fact the only system to create the most change and benefit in terms of standard of living and basic freedoms. But is it sustainable in terms of its effect on raw materials and ecosystems. I think not. Rampant commercialism will ultimately fell all the trees, burn all the oil and coal and gradually destroy the environment to a level where we cannot survive. The rise in the number of cancer deaths, allergies, overcrowded cities, and the increased possibility that we have triggered global warming are but a few issues already evident in this context. So how could total freedom work? Will it not be even more damaging to the planet than capitalism or communism?

Broadly speaking, we are seeing a commercial focus gradually traversing the industrial economy to the the e.conomy, to be followed by the corporate conscience and the eco-nomy. Ultimately, this results in a freedom of trade and action that borders on anarchy, but in a constructive and dynamic manner that may realise the maximum benefit to society and the players. What is surprising is the length of time that it has taken for any government to recognise not only that they have no role, but also that they are the most probable and effective impediment to progress. Technology not only changes the speed and manner in which we can do business, but it also more radically changes social fundamentals and modes.

So how might this work? By analogy, consider a Fortune 500 company that didn't exist 15 years ago. It manages the expenses of more than 20,000 staff with only two people. Everyone is trusted, and electronic screening is all that is required to police the system. Now, consider the governmental or old company approach, where no one is trusted and hundreds are employed to watch and police the activities of the rest. The cost is huge and the benefits negative. People feel untrusted and unloved. Meanwhile, those who wish to defraud the operation will do it anyway and largely escape because insufficient resources are devoted to detecting and tracking crimes.

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