Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication: Where would we be without Modern Technology?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication: Where would we be without Modern Technology?
This article asks the question whether much of the
technological development over the 20th and 21st Centuries was really of
benefit at all. This may seem an
outrageous claim, but I will present the case nevertheless. Let us look at
Apple's claim when it released the Apple II that "Simplicity
is the Ultimate in Sophistication". If this is true, then the most
sophisticated business are the ones that don't rely on a highly complex machine
that in itself relies on an incredibly complicated industrial system that ships
energy and materials to multiple nations across the globe to manufacture these
machines and to keep them operating. But how could businesses function if they
don't have computers you say? The same way they functioned before computers came
along - with well designed filing systems, even
backup systems based on carbon copies. This was not even that long ago - I
recall working at one of Australia's
largest paper sellers when the sales people all used paper cards to record
customer discounts, sales and stock levels. It worked fine. I myself later
worked for a wholesaler of manufacturing materials that used a similar card
system. In fact this company also had computers to track stock levels at is
various branches around Australia, but this was mostly unreliable as sometimes
goods had been promised to customers and stock still showed as available, so a
phone call-around the branches was often the preferred method. In any case, a
phone call was still needed so as to organise interstate shipping. Perhaps one of the reasons for the productivity paradox
(i.e a lot of new technology and little evidence of
improved productivity) is all the time and money lost building systems that are
only marginally better than those that they replace, but which come at enormous
cost and need to be constantly updated or later replaced themselves. You may
point to the benefits of companies like Amazon. But I am going to argue that
viewed holistically Amazon is incredibly inefficient. The Amazon model
encourages everyone to buy their own copy of a book (I accept that this is
changing with eBooks but I will come back to that). An alternative is the
slowly decaying public library system. This was (and still is) an incredible
system with branches available locally such that the vast majority of
Australians had a library within walking distance of their home. Libraries
encourage shared resources greatly reducing the number of books that need to be
printed and thus the number of trees that need to be cut down. If a book is not
available locally then you can request one from another library and it will be
sent across. In a spirit of public service unequalled in today's
profit driven world, libraries’ operations cut across institutional boundaries
with a co-operative attitude that still persists as perhaps the best example of
generosity and sharing between institutions. As a society, rather than
investing resources in a privatised profit-taking Amazon perhaps we would have
been better creating better catalogs of books and
collections in local libraries? I know it does require people getting out of their
seats and away from their computers, but then they do get to socialise briefly
with a real person. And who knows? They may build up some lasting
relationships, if not with staff then perhaps with other interested readers.
They also get a little exercise. And to top it off, they
will certainly save money - libraries are cheap to use, and unlike Amazon you
can browse through the whole book, even read large sections - without having to
pay a cent and without the worry of your every move being logged and tracked by
private marketers. This
low cost makes libraries even cheaper than eBooks and better for the
environment as you don’t need a computer or an electronic reader - something I
come back to later.
What about mobile phones - we need them don't we? Well we
never needed them until the last decade or so. They are expensive, costing
probably more each month than the traditional landline ever did. I must admit
they are becoming more and more necessary - particularly as the pay phone
network is gradually being dismantled. On the whole though I would
argue that they are net negative. The rate of turnover of phones creates
a
huge e-waste problem and the search for resources to make them and their toxic batteries is almost certainly
tainted
with blood. Socially also they are a problem. Many workers get little respite
and are constantly interrupted by mobile calls, even on weekends. Some people appear
to be addicted to their smart phones, needing to constantly check them. Including
when they are driving and even (rather rudely) if they get bored whilst talking
to someone. Furthermore there is increasing evidence that the high-frequency
micro-wave emissions associated with mobile technologies (phones and wireless) is
downright dangerous and may have unpredictable consequences on the health
of children. Not to mention the hideous towers and infrastructure associated
with them.
What about emergencies you say? Well let’s consider some
scenarios. Say you run your own business and you are in the field a lot? I
suggest a phone answering service would suffice, you can call in when you are
not busy and return calls if necessary. I think a lot of tradies
would be greatly relieved given a system like this. What if there is an accident
in the field? CB radios. These are hardy
and long lasting, relatively inexpensive and the radio frequencies are not
dangerous. A channel can be reserved for emergencies (as was always the case)
and it has the advantage that it is a broadcast technology - anyone in your
vicinity can pick up the message and come to help, not just the one person you
are dialling. These can also be used in case of car breakdowns and for cheap
general chats within your neighbourhood. If everyone has one in their car (and
you don't say you can't afford it - you all have mobile phones don't you?) then
it runs off the car battery so there is no added problem of battery purchase
and disposal. They are also not so complex to make, so can probably be made and
repaired fairly locally rather than in some dubious high-tech sweat shop in a
country with questionable labour practices. For doctors and similar who may need
instant notification, I suggest a return to the old pager system (using a safe
frequency) which worked well in the pre-mobile era.
How we would exchange ideas without the internet? What about returning to the methods of the past used successfully throughout the 19th Century, which, incidentally was also a period of high innovation. Salons, and modern equivalents - like the Homebrew Computer Club which Jobs and Wozniak participated in when first conceiving of the Apple computer – are a very effective way of exchanging ideas (in fact Wozniac wanted to give away his original designs through the club – Jobs convinced him otherwise. See Isaacson, 2011). Furthermore, they offer some immunity from corporate agendas, including corporate control of information. That is because everyone attends these on equal footing. They are simple, informal and access is not for sale. If a forum does become too profit oriented or appears compromised in other ways, there is really nothing stopping participants creating new forums somewhere else.
Perhaps the dark truth is that in many cases the new technologies
were not needed, but were rather introduced as profit-making exercises by
convincing sales people using powerful marketing tools and supported by
governments. In fact many of our recent technologies appear to be a net
negative in terms of productive output, social impact and environmental
degradation. There are even claims that we are being used as guinea pigs in a
dangerous experiment involving toxic products. A classic example of how our society has been
sold out by scientists and technologists (or rather by their companies’ profit
motives) is provided by Masanoba Fukuoka.
Fukuoka was an agricultural scientist in Japan who came to the
conclusion that for every problem we solve with technology, we create three
more. He took over his parent's rice farm and started going back to basics. He
didn't use any chemical fertilizers, no tractors, no pesticides, no oil. Instead he used only hand tools (sickle and scythe)
he also didn't plow the soil, and he didn't flood his
fields. So while his neighbours are
spraying chemicals like crazy and working additional jobs off their farms to
pay tractor and fuel bills, Fukuoka worked only his farm, by hand, and he
produced as much, or more produce, as they did.
His crops were also more resistant to insect attack. He demonstrated
these results over 25 years. All this is documented very systematically in his
book “The
Natural Way of Farming”[1].
Fukuoka argues in his book that what we call progress is really just a process of
making everything more dependent on fossil fuel. Anyway, so
much for the claimed benefits of technology in relation to agriculture.
It begs the question: In what other ways have we been sold a cropper; technology
that is not really needed, costs a lot, delivers more drawbacks than benefits
in terms of our time and which damages both our environment and our social
fabric?
posted by Matthew Mitchell @ 11:55 PM
0 Comments
