In my previous post for this series, I mused a little bit on technology and the problem of it being considered synonymous with progress. But if technology is confused with progress, then I suppose it means it isn’t automatically progress. This left open the question - what is technology?
A few years ago I read a good answer to this question in Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters - "It's technique. It's the way we all do things." (1). A new technology bursts forward with an eager explanation for how to do something. I wonder if a wider adoption of this definition would change the way we thought of technology. What would happen if technology were understood as new methodology rather than accepted as yet another unambiguous signal of progress?
I think one immediate result would be an improved understanding of trade-offs. When technology presents itself as progress, the question of why is summarily dismissed. (What do you mean, why progress? Who would dare question progress? Why not progress, right? There is never going to be much debate over what everyone considers obvious.) But since the pre-adoption stage is when trade-offs are considered, the mentality of technology as progress often rules out a thorough analysis of trade-offs. Rather than debating whether a new technology should be implemented, deliberations instead focus on how to implement it.
On the other hand, if a new method is considered through a process of understanding its pros and cons, then it will only find acceptance when the sum of advantages outweighs the total downside. Each decision is made knowing a gain in one area comes with a loss in another. When new technology is accepted as a new choice among many methods rather than yet another example of progress, the question of why is considered before adoption (2).
Footnotes / half-baked whiskey rants
1. Examples of technology being the way we do things…
Instead of writing a check, we pay online… instead of cooking over a fire, we call Domino's... instead of riding a horse to work, we drive the car…
The relevant chapter from the book is published on his website.
2. The example of the music player…
Consider the recent rise of the portable music player. At some point, the options improved from carrying a portable boombox around on a shoulder (and annoying everyone) to having headphones plugged directly into an all-in-one phone, camera, computer, and – most importantly for this example – iPod. The progression included technologies like the Walkman, the CD player, and the brick-sized iPod, each addressing how someone might listen to music in public with minimum effect on the surrounding peace and quiet.
But it never bothered to address why someone might plug into a music player in the first place. It wasn’t for a better musical experience – a claim supported by the resurgent interest in record players and the endless touring from today’s artists (and perhaps proven by the general outrage whenever a ‘live’ performance is revealed to be pre-recorded). It wasn’t for health reasons – I imagine we aren’t far off from someone trying to organize a class action lawsuit against a major corporation for its role in accelerating hearing loss. It wasn’t for improving public life – unless you enjoy the daily spectacle of the temporary deaf crashing into the unheard occupants walking, talking, and just hanging out in our public spaces. To me, reader, the question of why remains open, and intriguing, in the case of the portable music player.
