Technology journalist and longtime Silicon Valley-watcher Gregg Zachary asks why "Why terrorism isn't reshaping technology." Despite comparisons to World War II (which spurred investment in scientific research) and Sputnik (which led to the creation of the American space program), Zachary argues that the war on terrorism hasn't had much impact on Silicon Valley. Why?
Partly it's because there's a feeling among researchers that the government already possesses -- or can easily obtain -- the most important technologies needed to deter terrorists, and that the challenge is instead to mobilize existing technology properly....Moreover, because the terror threat is not well-defined, there's no single technological fix, unlike the way the United Sates could counter Russia's achievements in space by putting Americans on the moon....
In the end, an awareness of the limits of innovation probably is good. That there is no technological "fix" for the present danger forces everyone to confront social, economic and political issues that elude the net of science.
I don't think the author mentioned an essential social and political fact about WWII that is NOT true today during our "war" on terror: no one is expected to sacrifice anything to win it. During WWII, there were no civilian durable goods (cars, refrigerators, etc.) produced - all production facilities were commandeered by the war effort. Every engineer who might have been thinking about how to make a fancier car was working on making more efficient use of resources for ever more elaborate weaponry. And that's where a lot of that "innovation" came from.
The only sacrifice we civilians are being asked to make is to give up our civil liberties, bit by bit; federally funded lawyers are the only ones creating "innovations" rather than doing the usual ambulance-chasing.
Posted by: Bill | March 17, 2004 at 04:01 PM