At 16:47:22 (GMT) on June 8, 2007, Wikipedia defined "Technology" as "[...] a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment."; Webster provides a simpler definition: "the practical application of knowledge [...]". Note that, by either definition, this differentiates "technology" from the gathering, cataloging, and production of knowledge itself (this is a job for our researchers and scientists). We tend to think of technology as something fairly recent in human evolution and mostly involving electricity and/or internal combustion in some form or fashion. However, when one of our ancient ancestors first used a limb to lift a log to get at some grub worms, he (or she) was clearly using technology according to either definition above. The fact that this is not limited to humans is borne out by the observation of some higher primates using identical technology for the same purpose today. The wheel, the lever, and the inclined plane are three of the oldest technologies known to man, but their current manifestation as a rubber-cladded alloy wheel (with spinner!) and the car jack with which to change it when it goes flat are a result of the improvements in manufacturing technology over the millenia.
It has been said that "Necessity is the mother of invention". Most so-called advances in technology have been the result of pursuing a perceived need for [insert something incredible here] that will [insert incredible functionality here] for [insert list of incredibly grateful recipients here]. At the time that the advance occurs, it may have an adverse effect on some significant portion of the population. Within one generation, however, these individuals will have been replaced with ones who accept the new advance and thus end up living a different life than their fore-bears. The most commonly used example of this is the paradigm shift that occurred in the buggy-whip industry after autos became prevalent; or in the slide-rule business after the introduction of the scientific calculator. It is a fundamental axiom that every technological advance moves someone's cheese ... the advances only differ in how far it's moved and for how many. The fact that these "advances" occur and become integrated with each successive generation does not neccessarily guarantee that they are something that is ultimately "good" for a society or humanity (or "bad" for that matter).
I find it fascinating that a 93-year-old telegraph operator can transmit "Hey, girlfriend, you can text all your best pals to tell them where you are going and what you are wearing.” in eighteen seconds less than a 13-year-old can text message "hey gf u can txt ur best pals 2 tel them wot u r doing, where ur going and wot u r wearing.” It almost begs the question: Have we really advanced in the use of this technology in 150 years? This seemingly rhetorical question is not as easy to answer as it first appears ;)
IMHO, the most efficient means of real-time communication is verbal. There is no substantial lag involved between formulating a query and transmitting it and in retrieving the response. A flow of ideas and thoughts freely occur back and forth. With textual communication, we introduce a substantial lag on the front end by requiring that the query first be transcribed and then introduce a secondary lag on the other end while we wait for the response to be similarly encoded. We shift from quickly asking our questions and getting answers to sometimes getting lost in the encoding / decoding process itself. After you send that text message and are waiting for an answer, does your mind wander away from the topic? Are you already texting the next message? Wouldn't it be more fun to just chat on the phone or have lunch together?
In a previous post I referred to myself as a Luddite. As a pacifist, I meant this in the passive sense. I don't condemn technology for technology's sake; nor do I frown on those that seem to do nothing else but want to use it for everything, everywhere. I use what works best for me and, when finally convinced of the benefits, willingly incorporate new technology as needed. Yes, I send text messages when they are appropriate; no, I still don't have cable; but I always keep an open mind and try to envision how my cheese will be better if I choose to change.
In order to fulfill my picture quota for Karen, here's a picture of a vase I made:
It has been said that "Necessity is the mother of invention". Most so-called advances in technology have been the result of pursuing a perceived need for [insert something incredible here] that will [insert incredible functionality here] for [insert list of incredibly grateful recipients here]. At the time that the advance occurs, it may have an adverse effect on some significant portion of the population. Within one generation, however, these individuals will have been replaced with ones who accept the new advance and thus end up living a different life than their fore-bears. The most commonly used example of this is the paradigm shift that occurred in the buggy-whip industry after autos became prevalent; or in the slide-rule business after the introduction of the scientific calculator. It is a fundamental axiom that every technological advance moves someone's cheese ... the advances only differ in how far it's moved and for how many. The fact that these "advances" occur and become integrated with each successive generation does not neccessarily guarantee that they are something that is ultimately "good" for a society or humanity (or "bad" for that matter).
I find it fascinating that a 93-year-old telegraph operator can transmit "Hey, girlfriend, you can text all your best pals to tell them where you are going and what you are wearing.” in eighteen seconds less than a 13-year-old can text message "hey gf u can txt ur best pals 2 tel them wot u r doing, where ur going and wot u r wearing.” It almost begs the question: Have we really advanced in the use of this technology in 150 years? This seemingly rhetorical question is not as easy to answer as it first appears ;)
IMHO, the most efficient means of real-time communication is verbal. There is no substantial lag involved between formulating a query and transmitting it and in retrieving the response. A flow of ideas and thoughts freely occur back and forth. With textual communication, we introduce a substantial lag on the front end by requiring that the query first be transcribed and then introduce a secondary lag on the other end while we wait for the response to be similarly encoded. We shift from quickly asking our questions and getting answers to sometimes getting lost in the encoding / decoding process itself. After you send that text message and are waiting for an answer, does your mind wander away from the topic? Are you already texting the next message? Wouldn't it be more fun to just chat on the phone or have lunch together?
In a previous post I referred to myself as a Luddite. As a pacifist, I meant this in the passive sense. I don't condemn technology for technology's sake; nor do I frown on those that seem to do nothing else but want to use it for everything, everywhere. I use what works best for me and, when finally convinced of the benefits, willingly incorporate new technology as needed. Yes, I send text messages when they are appropriate; no, I still don't have cable; but I always keep an open mind and try to envision how my cheese will be better if I choose to change.
In order to fulfill my picture quota for Karen, here's a picture of a vase I made:
Still Life, After All These Years
This was constructed using a 3D modeler called Blender, converted to a U-V surface mesh, mapped 1:1 onto a 24-bit color bitmap, exported and uploaded into a virtual world called Second Life, un-mapped back into a U-V surface mesh, textured with bathroom floor tile, and then finally positioned in front of a virtual river scene for the screen shot.
I am going to disagree that verbal communication is always the most efficient. I think that it's extremely situational. One thing I found when Alex was small was that phone conversations were just impossible much of the time. I couldn't concentrate long enough in between keeping him from escaping the apartment, eating Ajax, or yanking ceramic lamps on his head. But I could instant message, use message boards, and email because I could start a thought, rescue the boy, elaborate, rescue, complete a thought, rescue, and the recipient of my message got coherent information instead of panting sentence fragments and screaming baby background noise.
ReplyDeleteThis holds true in many work situations. Rather than waiting 4 hours for Jane to get out of meetings and have a chat about the direction for the new site, I can IM Jane and get an answer and have a comp ready for her when she exits her meetings.
So I guess what I am saying is that communications technology enables multitasking in a whole new way and that can be a very positive thing. I can also be a hindrance, if it is overused, or if the signal to noise ratio becomes really poor. Just as it is silly for me to attempt a phone conversation with a tantruming child, it's inefficient and wasteful to text a person in the next room.
Also your vase is awesome. :)
I posted that under the wrong account. I wonder if there is a way to merge them...
ReplyDelete