Subject: post-literate change
From: Leslie Henrickson (lhenrick@ucla.edu)
Date: Sat 06 May 2000 - 00:02:43 MEST
From: "Leslie Henrickson" <lhenrick@ucla.edu> Subject: post-literate change Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:02:43 +1200
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Muhammad's and Tom's recent post quotes:
Muhammad:
The question: Does this phenomenon indicate an evolutionary event? No, not
yet. Evolution does not occur within one generation.
Tom:
Evolutionary change can occur within generations through Lamarkian
transfer- probably the route for the next round of human evolution in a
knowledge
age- so we may not have the luxury of time if we have any say in the path.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Muhammad and Tom bring up the topic of speed of change and related to this
discussion the speed of our communications technologies and the impact that
has on our sensibilities. The issue of "obsolescence" can be raised at
multiple levels: species, cultural, personal self.
With respect to speed of our communications devices what impact does the
speed of our technologies have on our sensibilities? And, to pick up on a
later comment by Muhammad questioning the relevance of technology/ personal
identity when things are in flux. I think that the relevance bears
looking at the nature of obsolescence. A larger debate may be described
simply as between technophiles and technophobes. The perspective of
obsolescence below purposefully outlines a more technophobic perspective.
The initial impression one gets about computers is about the nature of
obsolescence inherent in computer technology. The flip-side to
obsolescence, i.e. constant upgrades (technology in flux) are counter to
human ability to keep track of new ways of doing things and learning. The
explicit message is about obsolescence; the implicit message is about human
life becoming digital and, therefore, obsolete.
I can think of three features to obsolescence. The hardware
material and design become obsolete. The computer infrastructure has a
short life. The limited bandwidth of the connecting lines coupled with the
constant demand for faster speed create obsolete links between
computers. Again, the cost of replacing the lines is prohibitive and
seemingly ignored with talk of free internet access. The third feature of
computer obsolescence is the software. Perpetual upgrades are almost a
necessary purchase since they fix the bugs of the current software version
being used.
The flip-side to obsolescence of a computer system that has become a
crucial tool in day-to-day interactions is continual upgrading. One effect
of continual upgrading is that humans cannot learn as fast as computers
change. The effect of humans constantly playing catch-up with computers
can lead to frustration and to a lack of competence with our tools. We
used to be competent with our physical, mechanical tools, i.e. hammers,
locks and keys, typewriters. And when they were duds, at least they did
not cost us a lot of money and hours of frustration. Moreover, they moved
slowly under our direction creating a time-delay in our ability to absorb
their usefulness. A lack of competence with our tools has diminished our
sense of awe, curiosity and praise for what we work with when we work with
our hands. Our tools no longer inform our sense of well-being.
These tools of yesterday have a different nature to them. The opener and
typewriter were tools that involved the body more than the mind. Where the
actions, bodily motions inform a level of competence within us. The tools
of handwriting, mail and accounting are all about communication, about
language. In this sense, they are about the mind also, but they are slower
in transmission rate. Mechanical tools and physical activity informed our
level of competence as human beings. This is being replaced by tools that
inform, perhaps even direct, our minds towards a different type of
competence. The circumscribed physical contact had with the pen, paper,
envelopes as communication tools of yesterday rapidly gives way to the
smooth, gossamer network of fibers which offer nothing to touch except the
undifferentiated "chicklet" keyboard, one character keypad requires the
same bodily movement of pressure as any other. Without differentiated
touch, we have no competence. With obsolescence, we cannot even hope to
achieve competence whether its competence in mind or body. Hence, an
underlying fear that our digital lives will become obsolete like the tools
we use.
Any thoughts on a more technophilic argument?
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sat 06 May 2000 - 00:50:22 MEST