Madam, - In the 1970s we were told that technology, particularly information technology, would create the leisure society within a decade. It would also be a caring society with more time devoted to voluntary services, and an educated society as technology would free us to engage in lifelong learning.
This hasn't happened, of course, as we see from the high levels of work-related stress, depression and loneliness in our society. Evidence is also provided by Lucy Fallon Byrne in her article on innovation (Opinion, October 6th), where she states that "we need to invest in life-long learning to respond to rapid technological change". So now positions are reversed and life-long learning is meant to support the needs of technology: we are to allow technology to dominate, rather than liberate us.
This change has been brought about through short-term policies which continue to be implemented within the narrow parameters of an outmoded economic model and without any regard to the long-term effects on society. As a result, the great democratising and liberating potential of information technology is abandoned in favour of its centralising and controlling power.
Such social changes, which affect us all, happen without being questioned or challenged. People feel alienated and powerless - or are just too busy to shout "Stop". Or they are too bewildered by the constant flow of cliché-ridden policies, reports and articles to have the confidence to ask "Why?" When people are no longer able to ask why, then totalitarianism begins to take over from democracy.
It seems we can no longer depend on politicians to ask fundamental questions as they battle for control of the middle ground. Issues are raised in the media but the focus is rarely sustained long enough to generate a widespread debate. The universities could play a role but in recent years they have rarely participated in public debates on major issues such as the environment, globalisation and bio-engineering - or, indeed, on education itself - other than to reinforce the received wisdom rather than attempt to challenge or test it.
As someone who works in a university, I believe the freedom of these institutions to participate has been constrained. Governments have been unable to understand the value of education or to invest adequately in it at any level. Seeking alternative sources of funding now takes up a considerable proportion of a university's energy, allowing even less time for any contribution to the wider society.
Also, while those contributing funds rarely set conditions that would bias the teaching or research within a particular project, they do determine overall direction through the projects they select. Business and industry are unlikely to look generously on academics or universities that question the very economic, environmental and social models that sustain them.
So yet another support for our democracy disappears to make way for the ideals espoused by Ms Fallon Byrne in her hackneyed article on innovation. - Yours, etc.,
MARTIN HAYES, Corbally, Cork.