In chapter 12, ‘I am a contrarian loop,’ Lanier continues to stress the looming danger of human annihilation from the evolving technology which, according to him, is at risk of developing in really, really bad ways. Lanier is saying that the whole point of technology is to change the human situation, so it is absurd for humans to aspire to be inconsequential. Assuming that I understand what he is saying, which after reading 14 chapters, I still can’t be certain of—I disagree. It’s easy to follow Lanier’s argument and believe it entirely if we take all of what he’s saying for granted, but I have a feeling that the problems he presents are often self-created. Lanier points out that if we hope for technology to be designed to serve people, we must have at least a rough idea of what a person is and is not. I am not a computer program designer or anything of the sort, but as long as a computer program or any kind of technology, for that matter, is created by humans, isn’t it safe to assume that the knowledge of what a person is  is intuitively brought to the table? Of course, this is not to say that we don’t fall victim to cases of poor, unintuitive, cumbersome design now and then when it comes to technology. There is certainly a time and a place for the points that Lanier is making about lock-in, as well as the notion of the importance of creating technology which serves us instead of moulding us. However, in my humble opinion (and I say ‘humble’ because I realize I might not be the intended audience here, and so my rambling is a moot point), Lanier over-stresses his argument to the point where his concerns dwell on the brink of science fiction.

If I expected to receive a clear call for action after reading this manifesto, I am still waiting.