For years, we've been fascinated with the general phenomenon of technology moral panics, and how we see them all the time around new forms of technology. Video games destroying children's brains. The internet leading kids into a life of porn. These things go back many, many years. In the 15th century there was a technopanic about the printing press ("He who ceases from zeal for writing because of printing is no true lover of the Scriptures.") In the 19th century, people were told that traveling on trains above 20mph would asphyxiate passengers. A hundred years ago, movies and telephones were declared evil (movies: "This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood" and telephones: "Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy? Does [it] break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?").

DannyB now points us to an interesting Wall Street Journal article that delves into the subject of technopanics, and how they almost always seem to target "women and children" first. It's the classic "for the children!" argument that we see all the time. In fact, the article highlights another techno moral panic we hadn't heard of before: around electricity:

If you electrify homes you will make women and children vulnerable. Predators will be able to tell if they are home because the light will be on, and you will be able to see them. So electricity is going to make women vulnerable. Oh and children will be visible too and it will be predators, who seem to be lurking everywhere, who will attack.

The article focuses on the research of Genevieve Bell, who has a theory on these kinds of technopanics, saying that they need to have these three conditions to really bring out the fear mongering:

* It has to change your relationship to time.
* It has to change your relationship to space.
* It has to change your relationship to other people.

I'm not sure this always applies (think of the panics around video games, comic books... and chess - yes, chess: "chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body"), but it does seem to apply in many cases.

Of course, for those of us who tend to be optimistic about new technology, and skeptical about the same old moral panics that almost never seem to have any evidence to back them up, there's not much to be done, other than to point out these historical similarities. Unfortunately, that rarely works for the new generation who always have something in their back pocket about why "this is different!" even though it almost never is.