Slashdot Mirror
Robots Without a Cause
WG55 writes "Have you noticed that more and more technology is more ingenious than useful? Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian writes in his article Robots without a cause that much technology produced today will change our lives little, if at all. He writes, 'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'"
Only after widespread network and Internet adoption did personal computers realize the productivity gains that had been promised for three decades.
This question should have been answered fifteen years ago when the question "when will PCs fulfill there promise" was first asked. No one answered it then and I really doubt anyone will provide an insightful or informative answer now.
J. Bradford DeLong has an excellent article in the current issue of Wired discussing this very topic.
I used to wonder why Wired didn't have a "Comment on This Article" link after their postings. Then I realized that Slashdot provides that service for them.
I belive the answer is this: people who are pushing the boundaries pursue what is interesting to themselves. Many of these interests will be obscure and useful to only a few; that's human nature. But occasionally someone will come up with a brilliancy that affects all of humanity profoundly.
Electric and steam powered engines did that for the Industrial Revolution. The Internet and networking did that for the Personal Computing Revolution. What ever the next revolution is it will come faster and harder than any revolution in the past.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Well, maybe he's right. But I must say that as far as problems go, this is a pretty good one to have.
(By the way, when electricity was first discovered, it was mostly used to amuse people by shocking them.)
~The wind up radio? Trevor Bayliss developed it at his own cost, and Christopher Staines and South African entrepreneur Rory Stear put up the finance to make production a reality. Previously, people had to spend more on batteries than they did on the radio. Batteries are more expensive and less reliable in rural Africa than they are in the rich parts of the world.
Are they any use? Read this and make your mind up. But I'd say they're a damn sight more useful to many more people than a 3G phone.
Exactly. Case in point, from the article:
The wheel, powered flight, the telephone - these were important developments about which one could get excited.
All of these things were considered novelties at one point. The Army at one time scoffed at the airplane. The car was a toy for the rich, as were telephones (ever think about who got the first telephone? Who to call, who to call...)
The same can be said of, oh, the fax machine, air conditioning, television, cell phones, and, dare I say it - the personal computer. The man who wrote the article does not understand that "frivolous" inventions can lead to great ones with huge and widespread practical applications.
-R
In fact, what the article's author does is a little dishonest. When he says "not to change the world", he means "not to change the world in the way I want". The ability to efficiently vacuum a room without human intervention is a world-changing thing for people who would otherwise have to stand over the vacuum cleaning the rug or floor. It frees people to not hire other people to do the slavish chore of vacuuming their floors, thus reducing the demand for menial workers.
(And if you think that's not important...how many clerk/typists are there in your place of work? How many families do you know who have cooks?)
This type of thing is typically said by people who are bored and poor (and trying to say something profound.) The amount of useful technology that has appeared in the past 20 years is a multiple of the useful technology that appeared in the previous 80.
Jeffries apparently didn't see fit to include any references to recent developments in engineering/technology that will benefit mankind
No slashdot readers did either.
As one example, in the last several days, a tidal energy turbine, apparently the first in the world, was turned on, and is generating electricity.
Now, while many consumers may have an interest in gadgets, unfortunately this may be the totality of "advanced technology" with which they knowingly come into contact on a regular basis. Most normal folks will never see a windmill farm ( at least for a couple of years ), or a tidal energy turbine farm, or the inside of a particle accelerators, or blast off to spend time on the International Space Station.
Most of the important new "gadgets" are simply too big and too expensive for regular folks to enjoy. And many people, unfortunately, really don't care about new technology unless it provides direct and tangible benefits to them. While tidal energy turbine farms may eventually be widespread, providing power for many coastal metropoli, you can't really impress your friends with it, and, most importantly, since you cannot have a tidal energy turbine of your very own, you can't impress women with one either.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
Please READ the article instead of guessing at what he's saying and flaming it. He is NOT saying:
- Capitalism is bad because it gives people what they want.
- Today's robots/PCs are not good enough; we need better technology.
- If I can't see the use of something, it's useless.
His essay is not a structural criticism of technology or economy but rather of society's values. I don't think he would criticise the inter/ARPAnet as a technology, but he is criticizing the use of technology for the purpose of building electric eyebrow tweezers, ultrasonic dog polishers and internet-enabled toasters -- as ends in themselves. Yes, we can build them, we can buy them; that's not the point. He's not questioning the purpose of the inventions, he's expressing dismay at the trivility of the answers. If you're satisfied with them, fine.
Here, have a baby's arm holding an apple.
Those labor saving devices had a huge impact. Back then, housekeeping was a full time job (generally for the wife). Now, women aren't stuck with that sort of drudgery. Getting rid of the several hours a day we each (those of us who can't afford domestic servants) have to devote to drudge-work will have a major impact too.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!