Blockchain technology has gained widespread attention in recent years, becoming an integral part of industries such as finance, healthcare, and logistics. It promises increased transparency, reduced fraud, and decentralized systems. However, Alison McDowell, an independent researcher and activist, offers a different perspective on blockchain. In her work, she highlights the potential risks and challenges posed by this technology, especially when it comes to its implications for surveillance, control, and the financialization of human lives.
As I explore McDowell’s critical viewpoint on blockchain, I aim to present a balanced view of the technology, comparing its idealistic promises with the concerns she raises. I will examine her arguments in detail, focusing on the intersections between blockchain, social justice, and the global economy. Through this exploration, I will also highlight the broader implications of blockchain’s role in shaping the future of society.
Table of Contents
The Promise of Blockchain
Blockchain technology is best known for being the backbone of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. It allows data to be stored across a decentralized network of computers, making it nearly impossible to alter or tamper with the information. This feature has led many to believe that blockchain offers an unprecedented opportunity to create trustless systems. Blockchain can verify transactions without the need for a trusted central authority like a bank or government, making it an appealing solution for various applications, from supply chain management to voting systems.
McDowell acknowledges these technological advancements but argues that the hype surrounding blockchain often overlooks its more problematic aspects. She suggests that the technology could be weaponized for surveillance and control, particularly when it comes to the concept of “smart contracts” and the ways in which blockchain could be used to monitor and regulate human behavior.
Alison McDowell’s Concerns
McDowell’s primary concern with blockchain revolves around its potential to further entrench corporate power and control over individuals. She is particularly critical of how blockchain could facilitate the financialization of human lives. This concept refers to the idea that blockchain, particularly in the context of the “tokenization” of assets, could turn aspects of people’s lives—such as their health, education, and even their social behavior—into tradeable assets.
She points to the increasing trend of “impact investing” and “social impact bonds” as evidence of this shift. Through these mechanisms, investors fund social programs with the promise of receiving returns based on measurable social outcomes. Blockchain, in McDowell’s view, could play a central role in tracking and monetizing these outcomes.
To illustrate, consider a scenario where a blockchain-based platform tracks an individual’s health data and behavior. The platform could assign a value to each action the individual takes, such as exercising or taking medication, and potentially reward them with cryptocurrency tokens. In this system, the individual becomes a financial asset, with their health and behavior tracked and monitored for the benefit of investors.
Blockchain and Surveillance
McDowell’s concerns about surveillance are not limited to financial implications. She warns that blockchain could be used to create an even more pervasive surveillance state, where individuals are constantly monitored and their actions tracked on the blockchain. With blockchain’s inherent transparency, it becomes easier to monitor and trace individuals’ movements, behaviors, and interactions.
While blockchain’s transparency is often touted as a benefit, McDowell argues that it could also be a double-edged sword. In a fully blockchain-based society, every action taken by individuals would be recorded on an immutable ledger. This could lead to a situation where people’s privacy is compromised, as every decision or transaction they make becomes public and easily accessible.
For example, consider a blockchain-based system where people’s interactions with healthcare services, financial transactions, and even social engagements are all recorded. Over time, this data could be used to build detailed profiles of individuals, which could then be sold to corporations or governments for various purposes, from targeted advertising to social control.
Smart Contracts: A Potential Danger
One of the most talked-about features of blockchain is the concept of smart contracts. These are self-executing contracts where the terms of the agreement are directly written into code. Once a condition is met, the contract automatically executes, eliminating the need for intermediaries such as lawyers or notaries.
While this sounds efficient and convenient, McDowell warns that smart contracts could be used to enforce compliance and control. Instead of relying on human judgment or negotiation, smart contracts operate based on predetermined rules, which can be manipulated by those who design the system. This could lead to situations where individuals are locked into agreements without fully understanding the consequences, or where their behavior is constantly monitored and regulated by the terms of the contract.
To better understand McDowell’s concern, let’s consider a hypothetical example. Imagine a smart contract that governs access to basic resources, such as food or healthcare. If an individual fails to meet certain criteria—say, they don’t adhere to a fitness regimen or fail to take their medication—the contract could automatically restrict their access to these resources. In this scenario, blockchain is no longer a tool for empowerment, but rather a mechanism of control.
Blockchain in the Context of Impact Investing
McDowell also critiques the growing trend of using blockchain for impact investing. Impact investing refers to investments made with the intention of generating social or environmental impact, alongside financial returns. Blockchain is seen as a tool that can help track and measure these impacts, making it easier to prove the effectiveness of various social programs.
While this may sound like a positive development, McDowell is concerned that it could lead to the commodification of social outcomes. By turning social issues into tradable assets, blockchain could make it easier for investors to profit from problems like poverty, health disparities, and education inequality. This could shift the focus away from addressing the root causes of these issues, instead encouraging solutions that are market-driven and profit-oriented.
For example, in the case of healthcare, blockchain could be used to track patient outcomes and assign financial value to improvements in health. Investors could fund healthcare initiatives based on the potential returns they expect to receive from improved health outcomes. While this may incentivize better care, it could also lead to a situation where people’s health becomes a financial asset, with their well-being determined by market forces rather than human needs.
A Comparison: Idealism vs. Realism
To better understand the tension between the promises of blockchain and McDowell’s concerns, let’s compare the idealistic views of blockchain with the potential risks she highlights. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the idealistic promises and the critical perspective on blockchain:
| Aspect | Idealistic View | Critical Perspective (McDowell) |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Blockchain offers transparency, making transactions traceable and auditable. | Blockchain’s transparency can be used for surveillance and control. |
| Decentralization | Blockchain empowers individuals by removing intermediaries and central authorities. | Decentralization can lead to fragmented power structures that benefit corporations. |
| Financial Inclusion | Blockchain provides access to financial services for the unbanked. | Blockchain could further financialize human lives and exacerbate inequalities. |
| Smart Contracts | Smart contracts eliminate the need for intermediaries, streamlining agreements. | Smart contracts could be used to enforce compliance and regulate behavior. |
| Social Impact | Blockchain can track and measure social outcomes, enabling impact investing. | Impact investing through blockchain could commodify social issues and create profit-driven solutions. |
Conclusion
Alison McDowell offers a critical and often unsettling perspective on blockchain. While the technology holds great promise in terms of decentralization, transparency, and financial inclusion, McDowell warns that it could also be used to deepen social control, surveillance, and financialization of human life. As blockchain continues to evolve, it is essential to balance its potential benefits with a critical awareness of its risks. I believe that by taking McDowell’s concerns seriously, we can ensure that blockchain is used in a way that promotes social justice and human rights, rather than undermining them. The future of blockchain is not just about technology—it’s about how we choose to use it in the service of humanity.
