Survival of the Fittest Technologies?
As Walter Ong mentions in his book, I too, was surprised to learn that Plato in the Phaedrus, had made the same objections against writing that most people make today against computers (Ong, 1982, p.78). I thought it was quite funny that Plato made his objections to writing, in writing (Ong, 1982, p. 79).
I agree that technologies, such as print, calculators, and the Internet do have an impact on our mental processes (Ong, 1982, p.79). However, I would not say it’s a negative impact, such as the example Ong provides that calculators weaken the mind because people no long memorize multiplication tables (1982, p. 78). In fact, I don’t even think it’s necessarily a positive impact either. I think sometimes there is a tendency to classify things as positive or negative, or in terms of progress, as Ignace Gelb did with his notions of writing (UBC, 2015).
It seems to me that as new technologies are implemented, there seems to be two responses in general. One is to embrace the new technology as being progressive and therefore better. The idea of progress that is a part of our modern ideology stems from the Enlightenment. The way we think of the success, or adaption of technology is often similar to how we typically understand evolution. For example most people know the line “survival of the fittest”. But typically we forget that Darwin that indicated that by fittest, he was referring to the most suited for that particular environment at that particular time. He did not mean the best. I think with technology it is the same. For example, it’s not always the best technologies, or most efficient technologies that are adapted by people. Sometimes the technologies that are adopted are the ones which are most suited at that particular time, or are marketed the best. For example the printing press was in Asia for several hundred years before Gutenberg “invented” in Europe. Yet it’s impact on European culture was wide spread and revolutionized the thinking of that time. A more recent and personal example is in the print publishing industry. Many years ago QuarkXpress and CorelDraw were software programs using in the industry. Now Adobe rules. Basically, because they were able to market their products better. I know some people in the print industry who still lament this.
And the other response people tend to have is to remember older ways of doing things with nostalgia. For example memorizing multiplication tables, or even remembering telephone numbers of people may seem like it is a better use of brain power. And using a contact list or a calculator application may seem like a cheat. I think that brain power is still required with both ways. Now, we just do not use our brain power to remember the data, but it’s used to remember the processes to retrieve and access the data. In todays’ connected, globalised world we can access more information instantly than ever before in human history. In this environment, perhaps it’s not the most efficient to store information, which can be constantly changing, in our heads. The most suited method for this environment is knowing how to access the information, and how to determine the quality of the information.
Works Cited
Idea of Progress. (n.d.) From Wikipedia. Retrieved June 14, 2015 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
UBC. (2015). Module 02: From Orality to Literacy. Researchers on Writing Systems. Spring 2015 [Online Course Content].
Every invention experience resistance form society and a time of adaptation before it either embraced or forgotten. Cars , for example , could not have the impact they have now until many roads were created. Airplanes could not change lives as they do until they were large enough and accessible to such a large number of people. Social media could not have the impact that it does not until the number of users rose to include millions of people. Your reference to Darwin’s survival of the fittest applies to almost all inventions as they are adopted and as they compete with competitors to remain relevant to the ever-changing environment. Very well put! I wonder how our perception of technological advancements’ competition for survival impacts the way we view technology. Thought anyone?
I really like your point about our need to classify things as good or bad. Things are much more complicated than that. Our society in general is obsessed with the idea of progress and the need to only accept things that are seen as moving society forward. I also think that we are still using our brains just in different ways. It is no longer efficient to store all of the data because of how easy it is to access but we still need to put it all together.
Catherine
I think this is a really interesting point. I just finished reading Technopoly by Postman (1992) and he makes the same point. We are drawn in by the allure of the power and efficiency of a technology and ignore how it either helps or harms our lives.
Ultimately, I think if we see technologies as techne (methods to do something) or tools, we can better understand how to think about technologies. When they no longer have a use-value, we replace them. When a new technology is not useful for achieving any goal, it is ignored or discarded. Praising the tool or procedure for its power is silly because it ignores the user who directs it to a purpose.
So I agree, neither nostalgia nor hype seem to make sense.
Thanks for your post Parm!
“For example, it’s not always the best technologies, or most efficient technologies that are adapted by people. Sometimes the technologies that are adopted are the ones which are most suited at that particular time, or are marketed the best.”
Great point! Technologies are contextual just like everything else, moreover we tend to assess the efficiency of technology based on our own interests, because, in a way, that is the only resource that we have. I recently found a book about the Aztecs that stated something like “The Aztecs starting using the wheel before discovering it”, referring to the fact that they used the wheel in toys, but not in transportation. So, what gives wheels its “wheelness”?
On a side note, I have to say: Agree on QuarkXpress, definitely not on Corel Draw. In fact, in a way, Corel was the “Adobe before Adobe”, just my opinion ;).