I have always said “just because we can doesn’t mean we should.” Before cell phone and wireless I was saying these two are in that category of “shouldn’t do.” I’m sure history will bear me out, the brain tumors are starting to proliferate.

Worse is the telcos knew the phones were dangerous, but the way “regulation” works is if big business wants it, it’s “a-ok” in whatever regulatory realm. Period. There is no public safety at work in any government, it’s all illusion, and designed to eliminate the competition for big business.

BTW I tried searching for the “ugly antenna” story. Got a link? I couldn’t find anything other than technical papers.

“On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals”

See Bill Joy’s take

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm

. . . and if we are, or will be, what are we supposed to do about it?

There is a theory I’ve read that suggests that civilizations collapse when their complexity reaches a sort of critical mass; when the rules of the society become more of a burden than a boon. Lets assume for a moment that this theory is accurate. We may be in, or entering an age wherein such complexity can be handled by artificial agents. Do we check them and succumb to the burden of societies rules, ending our civilization? Or do we submit ourselves to them and extend the life of our civilization, perhaps until the complexity reaches a point where the machines are overburdened?