Morals, Not Technology, Are The Source Of The Great Cultural Divide

There are obviously great cultural divides in the world. HERE is an article (below) that suggests that technology is the factor which differentiates the primitive from the advanced cultures. I would argue, in this article, that technology seems to be the most obvious explanation for culture divides, but that in fact it is "awareness levels" in the different groups and that this (internal) awareness level is outwardly manifest in moral or immoral behavior.

The mud-hut farmer in Afghanistan who grows poppies, is backward technologically, indeed, but more than that he is unaware of the impact of his immoral behavior on the world.

It is the custom of a misguided Islamic prophet to advocate the killing of a woman who was raped -- as a matter of honor for the family. (Full story below.) In the West we see this as barbaric. We need not apologize. It is barbaric. You can and should "respect" the religious beliefs of others, but that does NOT mean you must agree with them or approve their religious practices. "Practices" are always subject to the field of "laws" in any group, or, at least, group morals.

For many years the Islamic countries have had laws that condone the killing of the victim of rape. Those laws are coming into question as the "practice" comes into Western view, and as Western values creep into Islamic areas.

We could say that this is a clash of cultures, but more truthfully it is a clash of different codes of morals.

By barbaric, we could, more usefully say, the people who still accept this custom are unaware of the effects this custom has on the survival of their own group. It certainly reduces the survival of the group to kill victims of rape. The "honor" of the family?" Perhaps there is some survival value to this "honor" but any such honor can certainly be achieved in other ways than by killing victims.

It is not unusual in Islamic societies for the men of the family to use axes to hack to death their own sister who has become a victim of rape.

Certainly the areas of the world where these Islamic beliefs are prevalent are very backward -- poor!

So, is it true then that the "technologically backward" areas of the world are, simply, technologically backward and not immoral? Can't we just ignore these actions and say they are the practices only of a few extremists?

If modern technology would solve these problems, then Coca Cola, television and computers would do the job. But it is NOT technology, but awareness of what contributes to maximum survival and these people have long-implanted fixed ideas that "you don't eat meat on Fridays!" Fixed ideas rule out logic. Unfortunately many fixed ideas come from religious customs.

Many of the people who practice this custom (law) of killing the rape victim live in mud huts, so it is convenient to say that they are just backward, not immoral. But, we have a bunch of them, just now, willing to be suicide bombers in order to keep their values and to resist Western values that are creeping in. The rail against Coca Cola and television, and they are fighting back the source of those despoilers of their culture.

There is another type of hacking that is just as barbaric, but it is "modern" and "Western" in practice. That is "computer hacking" and the creation and spread of spam and computer viruses.

The Geeks who do these crimes are far more technologically "modern" but their morals are no better than the mud-hut Muslim who "protects" his family's honor by hacking his sister to death.

Computer hacking? Spam? These are of the same immoral ilk, but take on a very high technological cast.

At least with computer hacking and spam, there is no formal "code of approval" but only the misfits and mal-contents who take on this mantle. However, it is still the same lack of awareness among these hackers. They do not see (or do not care) that their actions reduce the survival of their own group, and all others.

Alike, the Muslim and the Geek are guilty of immoral behavior based on common sense, not some religious creed.

Severe Reality Adjustment

Consider the mud-hut farmer in Afghanistan. He. and his many grandfathers before him, has been tilling the soil, growing poppies, and satisfied with life. Then Osama bin Laden came along. Osama didn't interfere much with the mud-hut life. Osama was just looking for privacy in some area where he could build a training camp.

Osama got what he wanted and the mud-hut farmer was undisturbed. Along came the Americans, with tanks, Coca Cola and television. Now there is disturbance. It was not just Coke the GIs brought, but new attitudes about culture.

There are still mud-hut farmers who don't want to change. They use axes to hack to death any woman in the family who happens to get raped -- it is family honor, after all!

In Silicon Valley there is a father who cannot understand his Geek son's language or lifestyle. His own son has a ring through his nose and smokes dope. But, he also designs computer programs that hack their way into secret files in the Pentagon.

We have hacking going on in two different societies -- separated by only a few thousand miles in distance, but by thousands of years in culture.

The distance in morals is rather minimal here, but the difference in technology is great!

In one thoughtful piece on this subject the source of world tensions is laid to just these great cultural divides -- to the fact that "new things" are overwhelming in some cultures, and are the norm in others.

On the planetary level we have terrorism as the result of these cultural divisions. Incidentally, as much as these divisions seem oriented to technology, they are just as much, or more, oriented toward morality -- or optimum survival for all. The mud-hut farmer may have no sense of "wrongness" in growing poppies, but it is just that he has yet to "rise" to a cultural awareness of the morality of this. Certainly the same applies to hacking in either the mud-hut culture or the computer hacker's society. So, cultural divides in morality are not well appreciated as more basic than cultural divides in technology.

The morals of the mud-hut farmer who uses axes to kill his sister who was raped? His morals are not much different from the Silicon Valley Geek who hacks into the Pentagon. Both of them suffer from a very similar lack of awareness of the effects on mankind's survival from their actions. Both actions reduce the survival prospects for the planet.

But the technological differences are easier to see and also not without effect on a culture.

When the mud-hut farmer moves to Silicon Valley we call it, instead, a "Severe Reality Adjustment." It is just a small scale version of the great cultural divide among groups on the planet.

But, when it is called a Severe Reality Adjustment, it suddenly becomes the task of the manager to deal with -- not nations.

How does the manager deal with a staff member whose view of things is so different from the group norm, or perhaps just his own position, that a small change is still not adequate.

Well, that should be discovered as part of the pre-employment interview, tests and screening. But, after the man or woman is hired it is still possible to discover great cultural divides that, in the small scene, are the need (?) for a Severe Reality Adjustment.

The employee cannot start using and selling heroin and expect to remain a staff member. The manager detects this behavior and has no choice but to "deliver" a Severe Reality Adjustment to the employee, probably in the same conversation that results in termination. This is an example of a cultural divide in the area of morality.

The employee, likewise, cannot expect to prosper when he can't spell or use proper English grammar. Or, he says that he doesn't "like" computers! He, of course, is very likely to be weeded out by the pre-employment screening, but if he gets by that? Well, he faces his own Severe Reality Adjustment when the manager discovers not only these failings but an attitude that he doesn't want to change.

How would you, or any group, avoid having SRAs ("Severe Reality Adjustment") in your area?

Get a copy of the Common Sense Moral Code HERE. This book on morals covers all the issues raised on this page.

Their mischief clogs the Internet with so much traffic that some Web sites become inaccessible. Their infiltration of corporate networks exposes private information and inadequate security.

They are loosely known as hackers, people who create and spread computer viruses. They also slip through the defenses of some of the biggest computer networks, rummage through digital files and leave the equivalent of online graffiti.

Their exploits were at the fore this week as federal authorities charged Jeffrey Lee Parson, an 18-year-old Minnesota man, with spreading a version of the Blaster worm that had disrupted the Internet. At least 7,000 computers were infected, the FBI said on Friday.

The past few weeks have been busy ones for antivirus fighters. Two big infections, Blaster and SoBig, were unleashed in August, shutting down some Web sites and flooding e-mail in boxes with hundreds of unwanted messages.

Most hackers aren't out to win any popularity contests. Millions of people have fallen victim to their work by way of infected computers, frozen Web sites and purloined credit card numbers.

Who would do such a thing? It's tough to say, because few hackers are ever caught.

But hackers tend to be young, nerdy men no older than 30, according to researchers, authors and security experts who follow the phenomenon. Opinion differs on whether they are loners or highly social within their own subculture.

"Most people who are doing it are in a teenager-type mentality," said Vincent Weafer, senior director for security response at Symantec, the computer security firm in Cupertino. "They're doing it because their friends are doing it, because they can do it, or because they want to see what it feels like."

The word hacker is something of a misnomer, and those who follow the issue divide the community into a various strata and psychologies.

Strictly speaking, the term "hacker" applies only to those who break into computer systems and rifle around. They don't necessarily steal anything -- though some do -- and usually cause little if any harm as they search out holes in computer operating systems and programs.

"A hacker may be motivated by intense obsessive curiosity that can take them over legal lines," said Jonathan Littman, author of "The Fugitive Game," a book chronicling the story of famed hacker Kevin Mitnick.

Mitnick gained access to software code in the early 1990s from several technology firms by hacking and by impersonating company employees and contractors over the telephone. He was arrested in 1995 after being a fugitive and served 5 years in prison.

Laying waste to computer systems isn't the objective for the best hackers, who follow a code of ethics, according to Littman. For example, hacker Kevin Paulsen took over the telephone lines at a Los Angeles radio station in 1990 so he could win a Porsche offered in a contest.

"Hackers tend to have their own morality," Littman said. "So in the hacker mind-set, if you can jack up the system so that you can win the radio prizes, no one is really being hurt."

Some hackers, however, go for the jugular. They infiltrate computer systems to steal credit card numbers, social security numbers or any other information they can exploit for money. Experts see little difference between this group and organized criminals.

On the other end of the spectrum are hackers who believe they are wearing white hats. Known as "hacktivists," their motives are often political and directed at disrupting or defacing Web sites. Sites maintained by the World Trade Organization, the English version of the Arab television station Al-Jezeera and the Republican National Committee have been hit in recent months.

Virus and worm writers are considered a separate group from hackers, though the line is blurring. Their only goal is wreaking havoc on computers -- sometimes thousands of them at a time.

The last few weeks have been a good example. A handful of infections and their variants have hit hundreds of thousands of computers around the world.

One is known as Blaster, a worm that invaded computers and shut down an array of big systems such as Maryland's Department of Motor Vehicles. Another was called SoBig, which spread by e-mail, flooded in boxes and was set to bombard certain Web sites with enough traffic to bring them down.

"The casual virus writer doesn't really understand the consequence," said Weafer, the Symantec executive. "It's almost like a computer game. There's a disconnect between the virtual world and the physical world -- forgetting at the end of the day that someone has lost service as a result."

Writing a virus or hacking doesn't necessarily require a computer mastermind. Skills vary widely between experts and amateurs, who often download part of what's required to spread an infection from certain Internet sites.

Indeed, Parson, the Minnesota teen, isn't accused of writing the original Blaster worm. He allegedly modified the worm's software, which requires far less technical know-how, and then re-released it.

Furthermore, Parson, if guilty, doesn't appear to be a criminal genius. He left an obvious digital trail that ultimately led to his arrest at his parents home in Hopkins, Minn. at 8 a.m. on Friday.

Parson, a tall, heavy man, appeared in court later in the day wearing a T- shirt with the words "Big Daddy" on the front and, on the back, a picture of a bear with the words "Big and Bad," according to the Associated Press.

Hackers and virus writers see themselves as adventurers or romantic crusaders against the establishment, according to experts. Software maker Microsoft is a constant target of their work, and the company was listed as a victim in the federal case against Parson.

"In every (hacker) culture that I've studied, there's some embodiment of the trickster -- the small or unempowered entity that strikes a blow on behalf of the masses against the monolith," said Mark Graff, chief of cyber security for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and author of several books about security.

But some hackers eventually embrace the establishment. Both Mitnick and Paulsen, two of the most widely known hackers, have given up their clandestine activities to become computer security experts for corporations.

Staff writer Carrie Kirby contributed to this report. / E-mail Verne Kopytoff at vkopytoff@sfchronicle.com.

The coming change

Between 2010 and 2025 the conditions for a big cultural change will be met. This will happen as a result of the current communication revolution. The magnitude of cultural change is proportional to the amount of communication increase (se the quantum leap communication hypothesis) . So, a big increment in communication flows will produce big cultural changes .

But as far as the communication revolution is unfolding very quickly, cultural impacts will happen very quickly too. In consequence, after 2010 we may expect that humankind will need to absorb a huge amount of novelty in a very short period of time. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people may not be able to handle it.

The ability to cope with a very large novelty intake depends on some individual characteristics, but mainly i) on the culture people use and ii) the social framework where people live in.

Cultural and economic environment may facilitate changes or, conversely, may hamper them. So we may distinguish cultures depending on their ability to facilitate change and novelty intake. On the basis of cultural changes occurred during the last 25 years, let's consider four different types of culture.

Return To Top

Type	People living within these cultural regions remain using their traditional way of life. They live the same way their ancestors did 1000 years ago.
Type	Those cultures allow some changes but they happen very slowly. Usually, they correspond to pre-industrial societies.
Type	Change has taken place even if some important cultural elements still evolve slowly. Generally speaking, societies in transition to industrialization have this type of cultures.
Type	This kind of cultures have allowed notable changes during the last 25 years. They correspond to confirmed industrial societies and, mainly, the post-industrial ones.

It is important to underlay that different speed in the novelty intake produces growing distances between cultural regions. And distances generate tensions. From now on, those tensions are going to grow.

PROSPECTS FOR CULTURAL CHANGE

Cultures from more dynamic societies (type 4) will substantially increase their ability to handle novelty even if novelty will raise quicker than the capacity to cope with. This may produce i) a digital divide and ii) several forms of congestion among their populations.

Cultures belonging to regions in development (type 3), will also evolve but at a lower rate. Some privileged individuals will cope with the novelty overload, but the whole social system will not. As a consequence, the gap between the rise of novelty and the ability of their populations to cope with it, will grow.

Return To Top

In the case of less dynamic cultures (type 2 and type 1) the prospect is worse. Here again, some individuals could face the rise of novelty but social systems will remain very far away from what it would be required.

	Novelty evolution
	Culture 4 ability to allow novelty intake
	Culture 3 ability to allow novelty intake
	Culture 2 ability to allow novelty intake
	Culture 1 ability to allow novelty intake

The ability to handle novelty progresses slower than the rise of novelty, regardless the type of culture.

Difficulties for facilitating change are related to the relationship that everyone maintains with its own culture (see ' The unbending process ').

CONCLUSIONS

Return To Top

The first conclusion lies on the danger of very serious tensions between different cultural areas. Until now, we have managed intercultural tensions with more or less success. Nevertheless, current tensions could only be a small scale prelude of what we are going to face in the near future.

In the years to come, the magnitude of intercultural clash may result from: i) unsustainable migratory pressures upon the more advanced regions, ii) quick proliferation of bitter forms of international activism and terrorism and perhaps iii) some forms of civilization confrontations.

The second conclusion is related to the tensions within every cultural region.

Return To Top

In the most advanced regions it will appear what we could call ' the different speed citizens phenomena '. This will be enhanced by:

several forms of digital divide, ( see The digital fracture )

the fast increase of recent arrived immigrants,

the quick growth of several forms of past-oriented social segments, which will be virulent and might result from novelty overload, particularly among certain types of people.

In the case of domestic tensions in the other cultural regions (type 1, 2 and 3) they will be of the same kind of those occurred in the more advanced regions, except those linked to immigration. The cultural shock in the fastest type 3 developing regions will be severe. In the more slow ones, the gap with the more advanced cultures will be extremely harmful.

Return To Top

The combined effect of international and domestic tensions and their astonishing magnitude draws a nightmare scenario, specially by the end of the current decade and afterwards.

All those problems appear to be related to the inability of current cultures in order to manage i) the rise of novelty and ii) the coming intercultural struggles. Populations need more effective patterns of behavior, renewed cognitive structures and better motivations in order to increase their ability to face the years to come.

The main conclusion is that we need to make our cultures to evolve. It must be done quickly, towards any direction able enough to enhance our ability to stimulate change and, at the same time, to assimilate it.

Return To Top

GENERAL MOBILIZATION SCENARIO

In this scenario, between 2002 and 2004 a debate on cultural change starts all over the World. Many persons and organizations become involved.

Between 2005 and 2010, the failure of current cultures to manage the new emergent problems becomes obvious and the time for action will have come.

Return To Top

From the 2010 perspective it will become evident that the pacific cohabitation of different World populations will not be reached by the means of candid pacifistic attitudes, dualistic explanations (the good and the evil) or mere altruistic initiatives. All these may help to deal with some superficial problems but has no helpful effect on the deepest culture layers, from where the precursors of the conflicts come. On the other hand, violence will not be considered as the indefinite solution aiming at solving problems, satisfying needs, controlling conflicts and facilitating cohabitation.

As a result, a kind of general emergency state takes place and several large projects of culture transformation start everywhere.

Pages for the XXI

	Home Page	Initial World View	Discussion Threads -- Read and/or Post	News Items
	Membership	What Is A Moral Group?	Direct Moral Decline Thread	Moral Decline News


Home Page	Table Of Contents	Discussion Threads	Membership	Copyright Notice

Cultural Change The next one		Josep Burcet © 2002
		Spanish version Catalan version

Morals, Not Technology, Are The Source Of The Great Cultural Divide

Severe Reality Adjustment

JORDAN - 'HONOUR KILLING' OF RAPE VICTIMS