Public Intellectual Part I: Democracy and Religion

Currently, the term “Public Intellectual” is often construed as a vague notion of any semi-qualified person speaking his mind on a specific subject. This unclear meaning has a positive side – it allows the position to be appealing to many people - not just elite academia who believe they hold a monopoly on knowledge. Although Public Intellectuals are often thought of as a dying breed - or believed to be watered down - their existence and relevance has never been so widespread.

Stephen Mack seeks to lay these theories of decline to rest in his essay, “The 'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?” Mack traces the source of the supposed American anti-intellectualism to - ironically enough – the academics. He summarizes, arguing that this problem is a misconception, if not non-existent:

“Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum”

Mack then criticizes another academic, Richard Posner, for his attempt to categorize the position rather than explain it on a functional basis. He argues:

we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

It's the actions, not the man that matters.

With so much modern development, it's hard to believe some scholars think Public Intellectuals aren't popular anymore. Still, the core idea is resonant. Alan Lightman begins his own contemplation of the function of the Public Intellectual by analyzing Ralph Waldo Emerson's own concept:

“Emerson put forth the idea of the "One Man," by which he meant the complete person, or the person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality”

Lightman then compares this idea to a more modern Public Intellectual, Edward Said:

“According to Said, an intellectual's mission in life is to advance human freedom and knowledge.”

Lightman goes on to create a hierarchy of levels of public intellectuals(while Stephen Mack cringes), defines their responsibilities, and even lists a few examples. Lightman also recognizes a new trend in the sphere of Public Intellect: “...many more such people, these days, have come from the sciences.” I would disagree with the belief that this trend is recent, though it is clear Lightman does not see any lack of intellectuals in the public sphere.

By default, Americans will always be aware of this position because the Public Intellectual is a byproduct of both democracy and religion, the important foundations of our country. The United States is the world's largest and most successful democracy, making it an apt measure for the status of the Public Intellectual. America is a breeding ground for thinkers – an elite technological culture with a large reliance on information flow and creative ideas – an arena for the daily battles between religion and science.

With the increasing importance of knowledge and information comes the reliance on and need for effective distributors. The Public Intellectual carries this burden – he must transmit vital issues and messages, however seemingly taboo, to his audience while accepting criticism or possible ostracization. Noam Chomsky, a current PI, explains the dilemma:

In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals.”

Perhaps the notion of waning existence has been mistaken for a common unpopularity of the Public Intellectual. Regardless, this notion is way off the mark.


The religious figurehead is one of the earliest examples of a Public Intellectual. Humans have always had metaphysical questions, and because of the oligarchical tendency of previous cultures, religion has been a main source for guidance and answers. Whether it is the Pope, Martin Luther, the Dalai Lama, or some other revered spiritual leader, these people are considered to have the required specialization and ability to transmit their knowledge required of a Public Intellectual. Now, many academics question whether experts of religion, arts, and humanities qualify as a Public Intellectual. Stephen Mack points out the error in this judgement:

One of the great ironies of this debate is that historically, public intellectuals in America are a product of both our secular and religious traditions

The dissidents hold an elitist view, believing that only experts in the academic community should be considered as qualified to lead people in this role. This rift between science and religion can be traced back to the first extra-religious Public Intellectual in the first democracy, where modern logic was conceived.

To find the first non-cleric Public Intellectual, one must think back to the first democracy in ancient Athens. The new concept of openly discussing important issues necessitated that people had the ability to negotiate and communicate in public situations, as well as be aware of what was transpiring in the community. These circumstances gave rise to the original expert on intellect, Socrates. The new system needed to be tested – and Socrates would do just that.


Famous for his paradoxical ideal stated, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”, Socrates epitomized the Public Intellectual before any existed, and successfully communicated his message to people more than 2000 years after his death. Socrates strongly believed that thought is the highest human function, emphasizing “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even during his time he was widely known and regarded for his intellectual prowess- The Oracle at Delphi claimed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Socrates developed a method of learning where one embarks on a dialectic, playing devil's advocate to whatever topic is being discussed, regardless of personal stance. He would engage in his method with many citizens of Athens, constantly searching for truth and knowledge. This process has developed into what is now called the scientific method and has been critical in the development of logic. Socrates held no double standards when performing this analysis, and often made enemies for it. He went so far as to question the meaning of natural phenomenon beyond religious explanation, a dangerous endeavor. Though many people followed him for his brilliance of teaching, he was eventually tried and sentenced to death for teaching heresy. Even when the court offered amnesty for an apology, he refused because he firmly believed his teaching and questioning of the world was not wrong. He was so popular among the citizens of Athens that a group of supporters arranged to have him freed prior to his execution. Socrates refused, arguing that escaping is an injustice and that two wrongs don't make a right – he would be guilty of two crimes. He felt he had agreed in principle to live under the law in Athens, and by breaking those laws he was subject to the consequences like any other citizen. Further, Socrates added that one should not fear death. He accepted his punishment for the good of the many and the integrity of the democratic system. By drinking the vile of hemlock, Socrates martyred himself and set a key precedents for the Public Intellectual. Despite all his achievements, it was his inquisitiveness that made him an intellectual and a his open sharing of ideas that qualified him as public.

Considering he only discoursed and never recorded any ideas, it is amazing that Socrates' message has survived so long. Conversely, one can see the immense effects that developing modes of communication have had on the Public Intellectual. Instead of being restricted to the people within hearing distance, a PI can now reach any audience on a global scale. One can transmit his ideas very effectively using not only words, but sound, pictures, and film too. The ease in communicating allows intellectuals to be aware of each other so they can share information. With a a computer, a blog or a website, a Public Intellectual can make his message available at any time of the day to any person, anywhere. Consequently, education and intellectualism no longer hinges solely on the institutions – a person can become an expert through curiosity alone.

The religious and democratic framework of our country coupled with our technological communicative abilities creates an atmosphere ideal for intellectualism. Since the United States remains successful, and because the integrity of our system relies on people actively debating important issues, it is evident that intellectualism is thriving. It is just ridiculous to think the most advanced country in the world is a nation full of idiots.

The Battle for Media Rights

Apparently some internet users in America have rights after all - Verizon's to aid Hollywood against piracy meant a triumph for user privacy over big business bullying. Though the move was also partly out of self interest, the rejection sends a strong message to the major broadband, record, and film companies worried about piracy. Verizon's refusal to jump on the information gestapo bandwagon shows just how desperate and ruthless some of the media companies are, being in the possible twilight of their existence.

Many people in the major media industries are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their market share, control, and profits. The music industry seems to be sinking fastest, making multiple acts of desperation. Labels are already notorious for their attempts to use the RIAA to target college students for copyright infringement, seeking compensation far out of proportion from the crime, using subpoenas to force ISPs to expose their clients identities. Among their latest brilliant ideas, record companies have decided to push the RIAA to lobby to decrease the already offensive artist royalties. Nate Anderson explains:

the NMPA wants 15¢ per track for the songwriters (often split 50/50 between the songwriter and the music publisher), but the RIAA only wants to pay 5¢ or 6¢ a track. DiMA suggests paying even less.
For streaming music, the NMPA suggests that 12.5 percent of total revenue would be a fair payment, while the RIAA thinks that 0.58 percent would be appropriate. DiMA has suggested that songwriters don't actually deserve any mechanical royalties at all for streaming music, comparing the practice of streaming to radio and arguing that radio's "performance royalty" should be used instead.

Because of iTunes popularity, some record companies are even considering forming a large conglomeration. Greg Sandoval explains how such talks between large companies raises a few eyebrows:

Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment have received requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice about a proposed music site called Total Music.

Whether its screwing the user, the artist, or other companies, these acts look like shameless last attempts at staying. All these attempts will probably be in vain because of the changing nature of the industry. It would be easier if some of these people would just face the facts: Nobody buys records or CDs anymore. Format is almost exlusively digital. Artists can write, produce, and finance an entire album with a personal computer. The only area left to infiltrate is promotion and sales. The record labels were too slow to digitize, so they lost their sales power, and with the internet, their promotional ability just isn't enticing anymore - there is just no space for major labels anymore, and there shouldn't be. These companies make their profits by exploiting somebody else's talent and claiming it as their own property.

Artists have been taken advantage of for far too long. Though this may mean fewer triple-platinum megabands on world tour, it helps ensure that musicians will maintain not only creative control - but rights as well - and hopefully fair compensation of royalties. The power of music should be put back in the hands of the artists, not the businessmen. Even Europe acknowledges some of these problems, attempting to extend music copyrights to 95 years.

The film companies aren't in quite the same position as the music industry, though they are still theatened by piracy. The music labels should be weary of Verizon's rejection, as it could have implications with the RIAA in the future. Broadband companies cannot become the policemen of the internet. In fact, this issue has major implications in the net-neutrality argument, being that precedents set here may affect or determine user's rights down the road.

Microsoft + Yahoo = $$$$ + ????

After a few years full of steady growth and growing public dissent, Microsoft has attempted a power move in bidding $44 billion to purchase Yahoo. BBC reports:

The offer, contained in a letter to Yahoo's board, is 62% above Yahoo's closing share price on Thursday.

This is obviously an attempt to inject some momentum into their company and compete for a large part of Google's market share. I consulted a few business friends, who believed the buying price for Yahoo was extremely exorbitant, and the opporunity didn't appear to be a good buy for Microsoft. Microsoft was unsuccessful in a bid to buy Yahoo last year, and Bill Gates surely wants to leave his company with one final gem.

Though I am not the world's largest Microsoft fan, I believe credit is still due, as the company has been key in development and expansion of the computer, despite their anti-trust problems and buggy operating systems. This deal would be a positive thing for the market, being that Google seems to be holding a monopolistic position, and their hold is only growing stronger. They need a competitor to keep them in check and to add balance. The only company with enough resources to viably compete is Microsoft, so for the sake of competition and keeping each other honest, I see this move as a necessary. Still, it is interesting to note that with all their anti-trust problems through takeovers, this acquisition effectively creates competition rather than eliminating it. The outcome could determine whether Microsoft remains a force in the internet sector for years to come.

also see MSN money

(Annotation 2/4:)
Google is against this takeover(of course) complaining about the open-source ideology being disregarded, and the danger of a "software monopoly.":

Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts

Google has good reason not to trust Microsoft or their intentions, though it would be remiss to forget that no-one would be supportive of possibly losing a large market share in such a burgeoning area. Google has some strong points about the case, but they are also playing the role of the victim, possibly overacting a touch. Ken Fisher also sees through Google's feigned innocence as an attempt to polarize the issue in their favor:

Is this a reasonable response, or fear mongering? It strikes me as more of the latter, to be honest.

Well said, Ken.

Technology and Innovation: Is Nothing Sacred?

Perhaps the best measure of mankind's success and evolution is the advancements of tools and technology. The wheel, the printing press, and the airplane are all perfect examples of this progression. The latest in this series is the adolescent computer, still an enigma, with a great deal yet to be discovered and utilized. Still, along with these uncanny and exciting developments come potentially equally negative side-effects and consequences. Science and technology seem to hold the answers for the future, but people should not put all their trust in these areas alone because they don't hold all the answers. Ethics will play a crucial factor in the survival of the human race alongside the evolution of the computer. If people do not deeply consider the implications and driving forces of technological innovation, the human race could find itself obsolete - or even worse – extinct.

Ask any baby boomer for a “when i was your age” story and they will be able supply you with a book full of scenarios. To think that some people witnessed the invention of the television, the first steps on the moon, and the invention of the microchip all in one lifetime is an incredible notion. Nowadays some people find it impossible to imagine a life without computers. After all of that, one would think it impossible that the world could change more drastically than it has the past 50, or even 100 years. The computer alone holds this potential for change, and it has only begun to reshape the world.

Computer technology is everywhere now, penetrating almost all areas of life. The benefits and applications of these tools seem not only endless, but extremely possible. Perhaps the main reason for this phenomenon is what is referred to as Moore's Law. Stated by Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore in 1965, the law predicted that the number of transistors that can be placed on a circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. History has confirmed the truth of Moore's Law thus-far, and if the trend continues, by 2040 personal computers will be as powerful as the human brain at the price of $1000.

blue collar robot

One of the most popular ideas of the future with respect to the computer and microchip is the area of robotics. Not only are robots being developed to automate human tasks, they are also being designed to emulate pets, humans, or other natural life-forms. Artificial Intelligence(AI) is becoming more and more of a reality. Still, reality always bites to some degree, meaning the dangers have yet to be realized or discussed. With these advancements in robotics and automation, human jobs are being taken over by computers and robots. Any labor intensive job could be replaced by a robot, and a robot would do a better job to boot. Whether the job is supermarket teller or assembly-line worker, a robot will one day be able to fill the role of a human. The automation phenomenon has already started to happen at fast food restaurants, gas stations, etc. In fact, the world has completely online banks like Etrade Financial, as well as computer companies like Dell with no retail stores. The only factor preventing the complete automation of all blue-collar jobs is the cost and availability. Marshall Brain predicts this reality:

“...you could buy a humanoid robot for about $10,000. That robot could clean bathrooms, take out trash, wipe down tables, mop floors, sweep parking lots, mow grass and so on. One robot (could) replace three six-hour-a-day employees. The owner (would) fire the three employees and in just four months the owner recover the cost of the robot.”

He fears this scenario could actually be playing out by 2055. Could it be that eventually a robot or a computer will be able to do any task better than a human? Even if one's job isn't replaced by some tech-advancement, new technology has enabled outsourcing to be another viable alternative to expensive human capital. An executive can hire real people from India, China, or another country for a programming job in the US, paying robot-like wages. Andrew Leonard sees these advancements penetrating not only the blue, but white-collar class as well:

“The great fear about offshoring is that it is poised to move up the value chain, replacing high-paid white-collar jobs in the developed world with cheaper foreign competition”3

Money and efficiency are obviously important drivers in innovation, but is their impetus too strong? Mankind must now closely reconsider their place in the world.

Science can now work at the most microscopic of levels in areas like genetics and nanotechnology. Recently, the first man-made synthetic genome was created. The first conceived uses of this include:

“custom-design organisms, essentially creating biological robots that can produce from scratch chemicals humans can use. Biofuels like ethanol, for example.”4

Still, this is only the beginning:

“Voigt estimated that a synthetic human genome -- which could be used in human cloning research -- could be created by 2014.”

Here, another scary reality surfaces. Genetic engineering is no longer a science fiction tale, it is happening now. A scientist named Samuel Wood has even successfully cloned himself with his own skin cells and a few natural embryos.5 To some, it seems that engineering humans is wrong, immoral, or unethical. Perhaps engineering a human only produces an organic robot, devoid of the randomness and imperfections of nature. Others see this as a step forward towards eliminating harmful diseases and other health problems. The feature film Gattaca concentrates on this very scenario. When Antonio and his wife go to have their next baby created, they are concerned about having too much control over the way their son will turn out before he is even born. The doctor assures them, saying,

“This child is still you, it is just the best of you. You could conceive naturally one thousand times and never achieve such a result.”6

Should we be able to control gender, hair color, negative addictive traits, and other aspects of human life? Most parents would love to ensure their children are free of alcoholism and heart disease. Still, this is very new territory and must be treaded cautiously, lest we make Frankenstein's mistake of creating a monster we cannot control.


Even if we don't genetically engineer people, the possibility of implanted chips and bionic limbs is another likely alternative. Who knows, our limbs and body parts may even one day be obsolete. If Moore's Law does hold true, the future will have a vast microcosm of mini-devices running simultaneously with everyday life, even inside of people. Processors, cameras, microphones, and almost any electronics will be smaller than the eye can see. Everything will contain some information as it is linked in to the system with everything else. Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) chips are the current incarnation of this idea. These inexpensive microscopic chips can be placed in anything, and can easily store and/or send information. In his article Perspective: RFID tags: Big Brother in small packages, Declan McCullagh writes:

“It becomes unnervingly easy to imagine a scenario where everything you buy that's more expensive than a Snickers will sport RFID tags”7

This will mean information and computers will be heavily embedded in everyday life. This intrusion at the cost of efficiency is something to be strongly considered before we go crossing the Rhine!
RFID tag implanted in a human hand

The high traffic flow of information will allow for exponential increases in productivity. Still, what of personal security and privacy? Well, with the modern age and new technological era, our old notions of privacy go out the window. Essentially, as a consumer or internet user, a person forgoes a great deal of personal information by default. McCullagh's vision:

“in the future, we could be tracked because we'll be wearing, eating and carrying objects that are carefully designed to do so. “

Data and user information already go for premiums to any business that wants to advertise. Eventually, companies will be able to custom tailor spam to suit individual tastes. All your habits, likes, and dislikes will be recorded and analyzed. Just imagine the type of information the government could attain with this sort of capability. It is feasible that all aspects of life will be capably monitored. This “Big Brother” fear comes straight out of Orwell. But let's not forget about the ever-growing problem of identity theft. With your personal information out there just flying around, who knows who will have access to it? It's possible some hacker from half way around the globe could drain your bank account in a matter of minutes. The one gleam of light is the balance between privacy and security – a supposed zero sum game. The lack of privacy will hopefully be counteracted by superfluously heavy security - but who knows – people are always vulnerable.




This quest for improvement has even more serious implications. Our environment is now in dire risk. E-waste(electronic waste) is a growing issue. The problem is that most electronics contain toxic chemicals such as barium, cadmium and mercury. Currently, a popular solution to the problem is to ship the waste to other countries, as Richard Koman explains:

“According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 20 million pounds of e-waste was shipped to foreign ports last year from California, reports Sign on San Diego. And since the recycling industry is self-reporting, the amount of e-waste could be much higher.”8

Furthermore, companies like Intel and Apple produce a great deal of toxic waste, having failed most national standards.9 Despite Intel's initiative to run a cleaner shop by becoming the largest purchaser of green power in the US, this only mildly mitigates the problem. Legislation is not enacted against these companies because of their supposed importance to the economy and the unprecedented nature of the situation.


Even the most basic human interactions could be lost with this new technological age. The nature of communities and relationships are changing. There are so many ways of communicating indirectly, it seems like direct contact typically only comes when necessary. A person can instant message, email, or text someone depending on preference. Also, with the internet, people don't have to go out to get things – they can just order it from their desk and wait for it in the mail. As far as Dating and matchmaking goes - it can be done online. Why waste time taking different girls out on dates looking for your soul-mate if a web site can find her for you? Virtual and Global communities are now popular, but is it at the cost of traditional face to face interaction? The computer makes everything so easy, people barely need to go out. This could definitely lead to people being more sedentary and could possibly further feed America's growing obesity dilemma. There is even a new disorder classified as “technology addiction” or “technology overload”:

“Another research paper, published in 2007 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology by a psychiatrist at Tel Aviv University, recommended that Internet addiction be regarded as an extreme disorder on par with gambling, sex addiction and kleptomania.”10

Our dependence on technology can become a crutch, disabling from convetntional interaction. John O'Neill, the director of addictions services at the Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas confirms this:

"We can become overloaded by technology and suffer consequences in our relationships”

People must remember what is important, and maintain human contact before we lose touch.

The greatest danger innovation can bring is the unknown. The sword almost always cuts both ways, bringing new problems along with the solution. Any new invention comes with the risk of opening another Pandora's box. Albert Einstein is a perfect example. He said,

“I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made,”

meaning that he did not foresee the scope of the negative effects the bomb would leave on the world. Like Einstein, many scientists and engineers get anxiety about new inventions, and the possibility of their misuse or failure. It is impossible to foresee all of the negative effects that will come with a new breakthrough, as there will always be a danger of unintended side-effects and unforeseen consequences. Murphy's Law classically states that all that can go wrong will go wrong. For this reason, we must use discretion, not necessarily pushing for a fully optimized and efficient world. Perhaps we should take a page from the Luddite's book, and destroy some of our own creations for the sake of our livelihood.



Technology is neither good or bad on its own – nothing is – until it gets into the hands of a human. People will always continue to innovate and discover new interesting things about our world, as it is only human nature to be curious. But, with all this talk of science, many other important aspects of life get pushed aside. Is there space for ethics, religion, metaphysics, and art in this new day and age? There ought to be, otherwise we face a rude awakening to a totally engineered world devoid of beauty and possibly humanity. We must always be aware of ourselves and the fact that there are more important things to the world than science. Jonah Lehrer stresses this socratic ideal saying,

“the sciences must recognize that their truths are not the only truths. No knowledge has a monopoly on knowledge.”