The first media piece that came to my mind was the Disney movie Meet the Robinsons, but Dr. J. Storrs Hall starts the lecture off with an example that people of any age can understand: the TV show, The Jetsons. The Jetsons is futuristic, showing flying cars and crazy modern technology. I grew up between The Jetsons and The Flintstones, seeing both sides of the scale. The more that I think about it, the more I think that this was intentional. I think having both of these shows airing at the same time was a secret call-to-action. Dr. Hall speaks on this at the end, but I truly believe that if we try to remain stagnant, we will actually backtrack as a society from where we are now. Refusal to change leads to falling behind. This may sound contradictory coming from me, the traditionalist, but the way that I choose to live is not the way that I want everyone to live. (Just because I want to live on a farm where I am completely self-sufficient, does NOT mean that I think everyone should follow suit.) I think that technological advancements are a great thing that benefits the majority of society, whether I want to be right there with them or not.
I like the sentiment that Dr. J. Storrs Hall brought up that we have the technology, we just don’t use it. There are so many disturbing examples of issues that society could fix, but chooses not to. Take climate change solutions, for example. We have the technology to contain the horrid effects of our current way of living, like solar and wind power, carbon capture, and sustainable farming, yet these ways have not replaced our current practices; they have just been implemented slightly alongside our current conventions. Fossil fuel interests, political lobbying, high short-term costs, lack of global cooperation, and resistance to lifestyle change show just how much society values convenience and profit over long-term sustainability. Another horrible example would be homelessness. We have proven that housing-first models have demonstrated success, but the stigma around solving the issue has been polarized. Our American two-party system strikes again. Political fragmentation, zoning laws, and a lack of investment in mental health support keep the homeless where they are and prohibit growth. Solving social issues is all about changing attitudes, not just deploying resources, which makes it nearly impossible. It is so much harder to change the attitude of someone in power than it would be to change a policy.
This next idea, unfortunately, follows the previous one. Machiavellianism, in a psychological context, is a personality trait characterized by a focus on self-interest, manipulativeness, a lack of empathy, and a disregard for morality. In simple terms, caring about yourself and your own profit rather than the effects your actions have on society as a whole. The media have shown us examples of the Machiavelli effect many times, usually through a dystopian view of how people in power have too much power and try to constrain society in a box. I always bring up The Hunger Games and Divergent, but that’s truly where I see us going. I think, and I’m sure you do too, that the concepts of this lecture tie into your ideas on decentralization and free market entrepreneurship. I’m not a huge conspiracy theorist, but I do believe this one: the idea that the government and those in power want to keep the public sick for their own profit. This theory claims that instead of curing diseases, governments and large pharmaceutical companies purposefully suppress cures or alternative treatments to ensure their steady flow of profits from long-term treatments, medications, and healthcare services. Keep the sick, sick: the idea that chronic illness is more profitable than actual health. Many think that cures for cancer, diabetes, or other major diseases exist but are being kept hidden. Like the random cases of scientists finding cures and then “disappearing”.
There is also the case of over-prescription to create a dependency on the government. Insurance leads doctors and hospitals to be incentivized to prescribe drugs or unnecessary procedures. The decentralization of power would make the decisions closer to the people affected, so there would be greater transparency and less room for hidden agendas. Regulatory competition, or allowing different regions to experiment with health policies, would lead to success-driven reform and allow states with better public health outcomes to set a model. If we focused on free market entrepreneurship and encouraging innovation and competition among private individuals and companies rather than relying on monopolistic corporations or government-controlled systems, it would cause a disruption of monopolies. Startups and smaller health tech companies should be able to challenge “Big Pharma” by offering cheaper, more effective, or more ethical alternatives. We would be able to focus on prevention and wellness, allowing entrepreneurs to profit from keeping people healthy, flipping the model that profits from long-term illness. All in all, we COULD have flying cars, but current car and plane manufacturers would never let that happen.
