New technology—Does it
cost more than it is worth?
Now that the holiday season
has finally ended (and most, but not all, of the celebratory lights have been
turned off), we can benefit from a bit of reflection on the technologies that
surround us. Whether you purchased or received a technological gadget during
the holidays, no doubt all of us were conscious of the multitude of technological
contraptions that are permeating all aspects of our lives. We now have
instruments that will take photographs in deep water, others that will shuttle
us along sidewalks in dense rush hour traffic (something Chicago police are doing
now on their Segways), and even others that will pinpoint our location on the
planet at the spatial scale of a park bench (thanks to the Global Positioning
System (GPS)). And while we are all appear agog over the changes occurring, as
indicated by our ravenous purchasing habits, things might not be so good after
all. While we surround ourselves with more and more hi-tech devices and sophisticated
information gatherers, does anyone question how they might be affecting our
lives and our social and personal relationships? When we do such an analysis,
interesting things become apparent.
Certainly,
scholars have long questioned the introduction of new technologies for a
variety of reasons—Albert Einstein, Jacques Ellul, and Lewis Mumford come
to mind. Yet, we donÕt often see critiques aired in todayÕs centralized media.
The cases that do get mentioned focus almost exclusively on one of two areas:
(1) potential impairment of human health—as in case of cell phones and
brains; or, (2) potential damage to our childrenÕs moral compass—as in
the case of the Internet. While these concerns are relevant and deserve a
hearing, they ignore many of the other costs that we bear because of the
technologies that surround us. Further, these two types of concerns often
create a hubbub only with a few, select technologies, whereas, the vast
majority of technologies get introduced (and many proliferate) long before a
serious discussion takes place. Unfortunately, this aspect of our culture may be our undoing,
especially if technologies continue to shape and configure our society as they
are doing.
In
my January 2005 column, I begged the question of whether humans were truly intelligent
species. My essay focused on the scientific and philosophical concepts that deserve
consideration immediately in order to avoid many of the dangerous, and
potentially catastrophic, technologies that we have developed and continue to
spread throughout our neighborhoods and landscapes. Here, rather that rehash
those arguments, I focus on another extremely important arena of
impact—namely, the social and psychological costs of modern technologies.
All
technologies have a purpose, although many may have been discovered rather
serendipitously. A car carries humans (and their belongings) from place to
place. A television serves as a receiver to convey news and entertainment
programming to a wide audience. A mobile telephone allows people to communicate
across long distances and from remote places. These three technologies clearly
serve identifiable and distinguishable functions, ones that many of us have
become reliant upon.
Consider,
for a moment, how reliant you are on one (or more) of these specific
technologies. How would you cope with having to do without one of them? Consider
how much money you (and your family) spend on these three technologies each
month. When doing this calculation, be sure to include secondary costs
associated with these technologies, which add considerably to the purchase
ÒpriceÓ of them—such as, gasoline, insurance, and repair expenses for a
car; cable/satellite fees, movie and video game rentals, and electrical bills
for a television; and, long-term calling plans, penalties for overuse, and
phone accoutrements for a mobile telephone. When you add all these costs, what
fraction is this total of your net monthly income? How does this compare to the
expenses associated with rent/mortgage and the food that you (and your family)
require monthly? Does this amount seem reasonable to you?
Likely
most of you realize now, if you didnÕt before, that we spend ungodly amounts of
money so that we can have immediate access to these three technologies. Perhaps
some of you are now ready to contemplate whether the social costs of these
technologies are high as well. So letÕs do it, beginning with the automobile.
Barely
more than 100 years old, motor vehicles are now ubiquitous in our society. Incredibly,
there are now more vehicles in the United States than there are legal drivers
(Miller)! Yet, what could be wrong with having too many cars? IsnÕt the
increase in vehicles per household a sign of progress, especially in China
where the personal car industry is growing at a feverous pace? DoesnÕt the
increased sprawl that we see in nearly all metropolitan areas, including the
home town of this newspaper, necessitate the need for personal vehicles of
conveyance? It would seem so, wouldnÕt it?
Cars are more than
mere transportation devices. They have become, as if they werenÕt originally,
prime status symbols in our culture. In the minds of their owners, they do much
more than convey people and belongings; they convey ideas of self-worth, class
identification, and social status. If they didnÕt, why would people, rich and
poor, spend tens of thousands of dollars more than is necessary (to get a basic
transporting vehicle) in order to obtain the latest (and most jazzed up) model?
But, so what if people want to spend their extra cash on their vehicle, rather
than something else. IsnÕt that their right to do so?
Unfortunately, the
social costs of having personal vehicles should give us caution. Consider that
over forty thousand people in the United States die each year in accidents
trying to get from here to there on the highways and byways that seem to
stretch in all directions. Vehicle crashes are the number one way people aged
6-28 die in this country. (My college of 1,200 students has lost two young
people this way, in only the last few months—one was a 2005 graduate, the
other was in her first year of school.) How many kids have gone fatherless or
motherless because of our addiction to personal vehicles? What about the tens
of thousands of people that have been severely injured in traffic accidents?
How have their (and their loved ones) quality of life been detrimentally affected?
Beyond death,
injury, or family upheaval, there are many other social costs associated with
driving. Consider the increasing number of hours that we spend commuting each day,
an amount increasing not only because of sprawl but also because of bottlenecks
and accidents due to overutilization of personal vehicles. Time spent in oneÕs
vehicle is usually time spent away from family, locked inside a
chemically-harmful shell, anxious and stressed out—all things likely to
reduce our life expectancies and the quality of life for our children.
Consider,
the incredible sums of money that have been spent on building massive highways
connecting people from almost all rural communities. (YouÕll now have to add
these taxes (to build and upkeep roads) to the total cost calculation that you
performed earlier.) It is foolish to think that roads are free or should be
built at any price. It is also wrong to think that this massive amount of money
could not have been used to improve our lives in other ways—better and
more frequent trains, better schools, more community centers, more
chemical-free food, and more poverty assistance here and abroad.
Television is not immune
to serious social costs either. We spend inordinate amounts of time sitting on
our buttocks watching this box. Not only does that have a lot to do with the
grave obesity problem we have in this country but it has a lot to do with why
we need constant noise and ÒactionÓ in order to avoid boredom. Peace and quiet,
something once cherished, has now become displaced by multi-tasking.
Since
the shows that are aired on television are entirely paid for by the
advertisements that skillfully break up shows into short (easily digestible) segments,
the goal of the programming is to grab our attention (so we watch the next set
of commercials). This leads to our present situation where most shows are
seductive but devoid of useful information and where news agencies pander to topics
that grab attention (such as violence, accidents, sex scandals, etc.) rather
than on items that might make us more active members of our democracy and our
communities. Most of us get our news from the major TV news stations and so are
extremely vulnerable to the political lethargy that grows on those that are sit
idly on their couches.
Also,
the commercials on our televisions are perhaps the most pernicious of all. In
their quest to sell us the latest gadget, conspicuous (read Òstatus-conferringÓ)
items, or high caloric foods, advertisers use highly sophisticated ways to
entertain us and make associations between things that humans need to be happy
(such as intimate relationships, contact with nature, and feelings of
achievement) and things they sell. Unfortunately, we are duped, tricked,
cajoled, or manipulated by them—use whatever word works for you. The more
images they show and the more associations they make, the more we buy. Not all
of us mind you, but enough of us to make it a very, very profitable venture for
them and a very debilitating venture for us. The constant bombardment of
advertising messages likely leads us to be more individualistic (rather than
collective), more materialistic, and more unhealthy (through our food and
beverage choices). All of these behavioral traits are not conducive to a happy,
supportive, and nurturing planet or community.
And,
lastly, mobile phones have become indispensable instruments for communicating
but not without significant social costs as well. With the proliferation of cell
phones, the amount of money that we spend to call (or page, or send text
messages, etc.) has climbed precipitously. And while the upper middle-class can
afford an extra $40-$100+ bill each month, I suspect that many lower income people
cannot. However, the promotion of cell phones has been so strong and
convincing, financial limitations doesnÕt stop many from purchasing personal
access to this technology; my recent excursions on Chicago buses convinces me
of this. Thus, I ask, how many children go hungry or eat highly nonnutritious
food (which tends to be cheaper; see last monthÕs essay) because their legal
guardians are strapped for cash because of elevated cell phone (or
cable/satellite, or monthly car) bills? We all know how financially vulnerable
many of our neighbors are, stories about the extreme debt that Americans face
do make the news on occasion. However, is anyone wondering why it is that we
increase rates of consumption of electronic doodads while the average debt
continues to skyrocket? (Perhaps it is no surprise that we act this way,
especially when we our government leaders suffer from the same
condition—overspending our tax dollars while the national debt rises to
new highs on a daily basis.) And more importantly, is any one wondering what the
costs are to our society of children who are underfed, under-read (watching too
much TV), or otherwise neglected because of financial troubles faced by their
family members? (Just to be clear,
I am not wondering if poverty is caused by new technologies, rather, I am
concerned whether its effects are made worse by them.)
Why
might people act irrationally by buying things they cannot afford? There are
two explanations I can offer. Perhaps one or both are playing a role. First,
many technologies have become so common place, that in order to survive in this
fast moving nation, people require personal ownership of the technologies (such
as a car and a cell phone). Second, perhaps the mediaÕs representations and
images (i.e., commercials) are so successful that people act impulsively (and
not thoughtfully) and purchase a one-year contract with a cell-phone company
(interesting that this is required, isnÕt it?) or a lease on a vehicle or
stereo, something that will cost them mightily in the long run. I am not suggesting
that people are stupid or sheep like, rather I am wondering if we truly
understand how easily we can be manipulated by the forces of materialism and
commercialism. (I donÕt accept the view that poor people are poor because they
have bad financial instincts any more than I think people who become addicted
to cigarettes are knowingly trying to kill themselves.) Whatever the reason
people make bad financial decisions, we need to find out if we are going to
understand the true costs of the technologies we allow into our midst.
Cell
phones are wonderful contraptions for sure. If one is stranded on a highway or
if one is on a passenger plane, cell phones allow for people to connect with
others in new and exciting ways. But recognize that we ÒneedÓ cell phones when
we are stranded on the highway because we live in a society where we expect to
encounter an evildoer whereas we donÕt expect a samaritan to help us. (We also
need them because most highways have removed their public emergency phones,
because, I assume, all travelers are expected to have mobile phones by now.)
Apparently, our society is so dangerous that it requires that we spend large
amounts of money on a communication device (and a security system and, perhaps,
a firearm, etc.) rather than work to create communities where people help each
other. (If you are cynical about the realistic nature of these assertions, ask
an older person how they survived traveling before the dawn of the cell phone?
Did they feel threatened by the prospects of being alone on the highway when,
ironically, hundreds of potential helpers drove by them at racing speeds?) The
more and more dependant we become on cell phones, the less we rely on our
fellow neighbors to be helpful partners in difficult times. And what are the real
costs (in terms of violence, depression, and inefficiency) associated with a
growing sense that technologies divorce us from any need for community? Does
anyone care?
Not
everyone has been sold on modern technology. Eric Brende, in his recent book Better
Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology,
describes his eighteen month ÒvisitÓ to a low-tech community. By slowing down
and having to survive without electricity and most energy-demanding
accessories, Eric and his new bride have many epiphanies—ones that bear
repeating. First, without access to modern technologies, Eric discovered that
an interdependence of neighbors was Òa matter of sheer survival.Ó In fact,
human solidarity, something that seems greatly lacking in our society, may draw
impetus from the mutual recognition that the people of oneÕs community are part
of oneÕs support structure. Second, Eric found that Òby minimizing technology,
. . . neighbors maximized human know-how.Ó Despite having limited ÒmodernÓ
education, members of EricÕs new community understood how to solve real problems
satisfactorily, expediently, and dependably. The best example might be the
simulation of a refrigerator through the storage of winter ice within home walls
filled with sawdust. This ÒoldÓ technology creates an electrical-free freezer
and allows for ice cream to remain a mid-summer nightÕs treat. Third, Eric
found that slowing life down made him more aware and more appreciative of the
world around him—the beautiful natural melodies provided by the insect and
amphibious orchestra in the evening, the majestic nightly light show provided
by the millions of distant suns, and the vicissitudes of water and energy
provided by the seasons. In the end, Brende concludes that it is our arrogance
of modernization that prevents us from recognizing that some of the most
satisfying relationships and experiences are available to those that choose to
recapture their humaneness by switching technology off.
Mr. Brende is not
alone when he comes to these conclusions. Many thinkers have found peace and
happiness in environments much less technologically advanced and materialistic.Ó
Does anyone remember Thoreau (Walden Pond) or Mahatma Gandhi? It seems that we live in a society
that has adopted an ethos (i.e., guiding belief) which demands gluttonous,
uncritical consumption of anything new and electronically-circuited. As shown
above, there are significant social costs to the use and continued expansion of
these contraptions. When will we begin to contemplate alternative paths for our
society? Are we so stuffed with these gadgets that we donÕt even have the quiet
time to consider these issues? I hope not. Perhaps if we turned off the phone,
pulled out the plug on our TVs, and walked/biked rather than drove everywhere,
we might find the time to do so.
Works cited
Miller, Leslie. (2003) ÒCars,
trucks now outnumber drivers.Ó Salon.
Aug. 29.
Peter Schwartzman is associate professor and chair of
the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a climatologist with
publications in the area of climate change and human population growth. He is
also the founder and maintainer of the website: www.onespower.org.
He can be reached by email at: <pschwart@knox.edu>.
02/02/06