Slashdot Mirror
Is Tech Bringing Us Closer Together Instead of Allowing Us to Sprawl?
A columnist for Wired has an interesting look at how telecommunications are actually making it more interesting to reside in populated areas instead of allowing the complete disregard for distance. "Technology makes it more fun and more profitable to live and work close to the people who matter most to your life and work. Harvard economist Ed Glaeser, an expert on city economies, argues that communications technology and face-to-face interactions are complements like salt and pepper, rather than substitutes like butter and margarine. Paradoxically, your cell phone, email, and Facebook networks are making it more attractive to meet people in the flesh."
You can't get cheap high-speed internet, reliable cellular service, or even reliable grounded electricity out in many smaller rural areas. Tech doesn't facilitate sprawl; sprawl facilitates tech.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Only because when people choose a picture for Facebook or Myspace, they always pick one which drastically misrepresents how attractive they are...
Personally, I'm not sure I accept/understand the underlying premise - why would we want to 'sprawl' and have less interaction anyway? Living in a city for me and many people I know has nothing to do with compulsion, it's because it's fun, interesting, and a centre for culture, entertainment, and humans generally. Most people actually WANT more human interaction, not the Unabomber life. As such, I'm not sure how this (supposed) effect is "paradoxical".
Read Pynchon.
But what about personal/relationship distance? Communications via email, text etc does seem to be replacing quality relationship time with a higher quantity of low-quality interactions. At a personal level we're drifting further apart. People no longer see themselves as members of a tight-knit local community but more as members of a global community. This defitiely impacts negatively on local neighbourhoods.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yes, but your situation doesn't invalidate my point.
My point is that technology follows sprawl, not the other way around. When enough people move out to new areas and start creating enough demand for the tech in those areas, then the tech infrastructure will finally get built. Until then, very few tech-minded people are going to choose to live in remote areas, and those that do (such as yourself) are going to have to pay extra and use workarounds.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
I commute 50+ miles each way to work, but sometimes I work from home. Depends on how I feel. The nice "tech" the company provides me with: a ThinkPad T61, a cellphone and a bridge line, also allow me to maintain contact with my team, some of which are in Jacksonville (FL), while others are in Charlotte, NC, San Francisco, CA, and others are in Hyderabad, India.
I talk with team members via phone, email and instant messaging constantly, and the majority of these people I've never met face-to-face.
Sounds to me like tech is making it easier for work groups to "sprawl" around the country, and the world.
No matter where you go... there you are.
This isn't a case of: "what does technology do to you?"
It's more like: "what do YOU do with IT?"
This isn't to say that new technologies can't oppress you in new ways when they are forced on you in (eg) employment relationships; just that the core of the problem there isn't technology - it's the employment relationship.
When we are given real control over whether and how to use technology, it's plenty liberating; but putting a pager on a serf just amplifies his subservient condition.
Isn't this pretty much the opposite of the "long-tail" theory?
I guess every stupid sociological theory deserves an equally stupid response.
How are the two even related? The Long Tail is about what people like to buy, TFA is about human interaction. Apples and TRS-80s.
I live out on the farm and have access to pretty much all the technology that most people who live in major cities have. The government has made a big push to make sure the less populated areas are not left behind. If it were truly a free market, you'd be right, but there are other factors that come into play.
I also choose to live in a place where I don't have to drive to go everywhere: a large city where walking, biking, and public transit all get me places instead of an endless sea of other residences.
Really, I think all you're saying is "life sucks for those in suburban hell." :)
I'll class San Francisco as partly livable; Pacific Heights being a powerful counterexample. The older parts of Portland are still OK, but the burbs are a disaster. Seattle was all right until the Microsoft Millionaires bought up so much of the in-town real estate for game nights. Most other Western cities are a joke.
The East is a lot more complicated, but what bright spots I've seen are specs in a sea of creeping unlivability. I haven't seen that much of Europe from ground level but what I have seen isn't encouraging.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Our cities are absolutely wonderful places to be. When I'm driving around, my 4 wheels are always on solid pavement. Sometimes I'm asked to move at 70 miles an hour or more, but it's not all work. I spend vast amounts of time driving very slowly with thousands of other cars, bumper to bumper. It's a great opportunity to get to know the cute Chevrolet in the next lane. And several times a day I get to go out to parking lots where I can do more mingling with other cars in parking lots. My driver almost never walks anywhere. He buys me all the gas I need. I've very well taken care of.
On the other hand, if I were a human, these cities wouldn't be very good at all. It's obvious to everybody that these beautiful cities just weren't designed for people at all. They are designed for cars like me, and it's wonderful being a car in these modern American cities. I don't know why the humans don't just leave for someplace they might feel more comfortable.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The answer is "both". Technology gives us more options. Those that like living closer (evidently, most) can choose to do so. Those that like getting away (evidently, a minority) now also can and do choose to do so. There's always some pros and cons to either decision, but at least more options are available now.