Should we try to save the world? I think most people would think this question to be a little bit silly. Interestingly, however, the reasons for which they so think would perhaps split respondents down the middle. One group would say: what? Of course we should try to save the world. Are you mad? Why wouldn’t you want to save the world? Are you some kind of misanthrope? The other group would say something like: What? Of course you shouldn’t try to save the world. It’s the people who are trying to save the world that are ruining it. Saving the world displays a kind of arrogance - that you know best. You end up forcing a square peg into a round hole and making everything the worse for it. But perhaps there is an argument for the former that avoids this charge of arrogance. Perhaps we can remain optimistic without being dogmatic. But how?
I’ve long been fascinated by the means by which the marketers so effectively manage to determine our choices in the marketplace. This effectiveness has long been appreciated by the corporations who spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year in marketing their services and products. While information about how these techniques work, and the reasons for their success, are starting to filter down to ordinary people (empowering their choices and to some degree liberating them from the malaise) - still many are unaware of their implicit involvement in marketing processes. We are helping the marketers and we don’t even know it. What I’ll attempt to demonstrate is the degree to which classic marketing techniques rely on the competitive and combative elements of human nature to re-inforce the individual marketing message. Once it is seen just how involved we all are, the insidious nature of corporate marketing becomes stark. We begin to realise just how much we help the marketers to do what they do.
Internet access has been defined by the right of the user to determine which content they want to see. This right of free and unfettered access is currently under threat from certain vested interests that want to curtail that right. But why in a democracy would our legislators ever consider this idea? In fact, as you start to dig a little deeper one begins to see the issue of net neutrality exposes the great contradiction of modern democracy. Few commentators are making the connection between the issue of net neutrality and the fundamental assumption underlying modern capitalism. Once this connection is exposed, it becomes very clear why conservative forces are fighting very hard to curtail the user’s right to determine content. It also throws into interesting relief the business models of companies like youtube.com and digg.com which use content management systems that are user determined. Many commentators have called into question the business models of these pioneering companies - but no one seems to have noticed that these companies stand in the way of an economic model that has been in place since the twenties - a model the neo-conservatives are trying very hard to protect.