Elon Musk. (AFP)
Addressing the nascent computer industry in 1990, information theorist Neil Postman questioned the unspoken assumption that the capacity to process information is at the heart of society’s ills.
“If children die of starvation in Ethiopia, does it occur because of a lack of information?” he asked. “Does racism in South Africa exist because of a lack of information? If criminals roam the streets of New York City, do they do so because of a lack of information?”
Postman’s prophetic words are important to remember in the aftermath of last week’s Oval Office sitdown between President Donald Trump and President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation.
In that infamous meeting, South Africa’s richest man Johann Rupert pleaded the case that the country’s police stations are in desperate need of Starlink — the communication technology controlled by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk.
Rupert has rightly received acclaim for his articulation of the fact that crime is devastating to the whole nation, and not one group in particular. But this particular point is worth considering.
Crime and its causes in this country are many, varied and nuanced. To his great credit once more, Rupert used the Western Cape as an example of its complexity. So often seen by outsiders as an oasis in a broader swamp, the province’s neighbourhoods endure some of South Africa’s most brutal, seemingly interminable violence.
Such crime is not going to be solved overnight with a satellite. But would the use of Starlink — presumably as a surveillance tool — have a measurable effect?
Lacking further evidence, we are not going to dispute the possibility. What we will caution against, however, is reducing our motivations to simple narratives.
The Starlink discussion is turning all shades of ugly and threatens to be the latest issue to tear at the perpetually shaky unity of our government.
Black economic empowerment has emerged as central to the debate. Resentment towards the policy has always existed but it has bubbled closer and closer to the surface as the economy falters, and the government endures sustained attack from a superpower using propaganda to cast redress as racial persecution.
As a democracy, it is incumbent on us to continually revisit the effectiveness of our practices, but it must be done for the right reasons.
The state should consider the unintended consequences that have flowed from its policies. The country might consider that in the Oval Office, the world witnessed not only our weaknesses but our peculiar, imperfect oneness as a people and ask where we are willing to compromise and for what real gain.