When I read this article, a few things came into my
mind. The first was how many times
technology has failed me or almost failed me throughout my life. In stark contrast, my second thought was how
much technology has helped me in life.
My third thought was how the present and the future are doing no
differently than the past that much of the article goes into.
The article talks about the transition that people made at
the turn of the 20th century from personal power sources to outsourced
power from electric companies. It also
talks about computers and e-readers (Kindles, etc.) taking over the majority of
the rolls that books formerly dominated.
When I read these things, I recalled a conversation that I had with a
friend of mine about the potential for an apocalyptic event. He contended that the only people who would
survive were those who lived with the least amount of technology as possible,
that people who rely too much on their cell phones, microwaves, and cars would
be dead in the water should such an event occur. I suggested that no matter how
technologically advanced humans become, if put in a situation such as an
apocalypse, we would all revert to our primal survival instincts and a
Darwinian state of survival of the fittest.
To that end, I think the smartest people and the people most physically
in shape would be the ones to live. As
crazy as this conversation got, I could not help but remember the times that
technology did fail me and I was caught in a corner because of it. For example, before I had a laptop with a
battery and the power would go out, there was no way for me to do certain kinds
of school work. Actually, whenever the
power goes out, we all suddenly remember how much technology we actually
use. Let’s just hope this apocalypse
either does not come or is short and painless.
The article also touches on the different technologies that
have come out over the years and changed the way people consume media. The most interesting part that I did not know
about was Ernie Kovacs’ early television hijinks of showing different ways the
visual medium could do so much more than radio.
This made me think of not only how far we have come technologically
during only my own life, but also how quickly certain people caught onto the
potentials of emerging technologies over the years. I could not possibly list all the innovations
I have seen in 28 years; but what has amazed and inspired me has been the big
thinkers who took these innovations and quickly improved upon them. For example, it did not take long for
interactive media professionals in the ‘90s to make the Internet usable for
things like shopping, banking, sharing, etc.
The Internet could easily have stayed in its initial bubble of e-mail,
chat rooms, and really basic websites; but these forward-thinkers saw just how
much it could do.
The last thing I thought about is how even these
forward-thinkers are sometimes in caught in a bubble of innovating on what we
have already seen, as opposed to creating something entirely new. This would be the different between creating
a touchscreen for an existing desktop computer and creating a touchscreen that
is a computer (tablets, phones, etc.) or making a new user interface
altogether. Even media creators who do
not have to deal with the limits of technology do this. I have seen very few, if any, science fiction
movies that truly capture what future outer space might look like. They always base machines, especially
spaceships, on machines we have on Earth today.
This is understandable because they want their audience to understand
what they are looking at. But why should
a spaceship look and behave like an airplane?
A spaceship would not be fighting gravity and would not have to move
through air. It could be shaped like
anything and move anywhere it wanted in 3D space. While the dogfights in Star Wars are
entertaining, a real space fight would be even crazier.