Papyrus & Cyberspace
I appreciated O’Donnells use of the word “frontier” and the example of the introduction/growth of automobiles when discussing the development of technology. These metaphors/examples gave a great representation of a newer and better world with electronic technology. I appreciated his discussion on the idea that everything comes with a “loss” and “gain”. O’Donnell stressed that balance is key; that we should avoid the use of such extremes (doom and utopia). I appreciated O’Donnell’s statement that we will all live on the frontier soon enough, regardless of whether or not we are averse to the change or not – we will be part of it.
In comparison, Engell stressed the fact that transformation has already occurred. It is subsequently, already present. Engell touched upon the fact that extreme predictions and fearful anticipation (such as libraries being all electronic screens) is rarely correct. Engell believes predictions of sudden transformation do not occur; instead, there is a much more “onion” like development that occurs over time. I appreciated Engell touching upon issues that I believe we still need to consider in today’s more “modern” world, such as the distribution of money and resources (electronic vs. print) in libraries, as well as, storage management and retrieval of online management. Engell also outlined the importance of face to face engagement – and how technology can be negotiated into meeting some of these F2F needs through email, group formation, etc.
Sources:
Cambridge Forum. (1999). From papyrus to cyberspace.
I was also pleased about neutrality in which O’Donnell discussed technology, because I agree that it seems to be doom or utopia and I don’t feel either one is correct. I felt that his examples summed up this idea of balance. In addition to the very apt automobile metaphor that you mentioned, I also liked his example about the printed book. The printed book had a huge effect on the world and really emphasised the text based culture in which we lived. Depending on your situation at this time, it could be doom or utopia; however, the worst predictions failed to come true and I think we can all agree that it certainly did not fix our problems to create a utopia. The same will likely be true of our current technological advancements.
It really is only when you look back that you can see how much has changed in the last decade. The change is gradual and often barely noticeable. Engell mentions that even if you want to hold out against the wave of technology it is extremely challenging. An example more recent than this broadcast would be the cell phone/pay phone dichotomy. If you would like to live without a cell phone these days, you had better be prepared to hunt down a pay phone if you need to make a call as they are getting harder and harder to find.
It was nice to see a discussion about how technology fits into face-to-face situations/life. Things which worked well have been kept and supplemented with new technologies. It’s unlikely that the in person interpersonal relationships will ever be completely replaced with technology, but instead they are supplemented. For example, seeing a friend in person is more satisfactory than having a text conversation, but text allows you to keep in touch when you can’t see each other and allows you to coordinate a visit. At the same time technology defiantly won’t fix the world’s problems, there will be no utopia, but it’s unlikely that technology will eradicate face-to-face interactions and leave us in a technological bubble either.