Spock vs. John Muir: The Technology Debate

I’m not a Luddite completely I believe in refrigerators to cool my martinis, and washing machines because I hate to see women smacking their laundry against a rock. When I hear about hardware, I think of pots and pans, and when I hear about software, I think of sheets and towels.

~ Louis “Studs” Terkel

The following is the first in a series of posts exploring the current debate over technology and its effects, if any, on social behavior. ~ MD

T

echnology (and its effects) is hot.

Last week alone, I read three articles touching on what you could call the Spock vs. John Muir debate: those who think technology will save the world versus those who think that technology is harmful to nature (both human and the outside world).

It’s an interesting debate and one that warrants serious thought and research ~ even, as we shall see in future posts, for the artist and the gardener.  As such, one article isn’t enough to fully explore the implications of both the question itself and the answers and solutions proposed by all sides.  So this post will be one of a series of posts on the subject.

In the Friday June 14 edition of the NY Times, columnist Paul Krugman poses an important problem: “workers who are currently considered highly skilled, and who invested a lot of time and money in acquiring those skills” are in danger of those skills being devalued in a world of advanced technology and automation.

Krugman cites a report by the McKinsey Global Institute that suggests  

that we’re going to be seeing a lot of “automation of knowledge work,” with software doing things that used to require college graduates. Advanced robotics could further diminish employment in manufacturing, but it could also replace some medical professionals.

This is far from being a “The end is near!” narrative: it’s just a fact.

One only has to look at how something as simple as washing clothes was done before technology: either a maid or the woman of the house beating clothes against a rock in a nearby stream; and how it is done after technology: putting the clothes in a machine, pushing a button and 15 minutes later, clean clothes.  Even the old wringer washers were an advancement over beating the dirt out on a rock!

You will be assimilated!

© Kuhan, 123rf.com



But there are two ways to look at this progression.  On the negative side, the maid loses her job ~ and yes, we may think it was a poor job to have, but nevertheless at the end of the day, she had a task for which she was given room and board.  On the positive side, for those of us who wouldn’t be able to afford a maid, this is a vast improvement over hauling all those clothes to the river!  (The sustainable-green side of me would love to try out an old wringer washer, but knowing me, that fascination wouldn’t last very long!)

So what is a Luddite?

The Etymology Dictionary defines “luddite” as  

a name taken by an organized band of weavers who destroyed machinery in Midlands and northern England 1811-16 for fear it would deprive them of work.  Supposedly from Ned Ludd, a Leicestershire worker who in 1779 had done the same before through insanity (but that story first was told in 1847).  Applied to modern rejecters of automation and technology from at least 1961.   Used as an adjective from 1812.

So the debate has been going on for a long time ~ longer than one might think!

Krugman mentions those displaced workers from Leeds: 

“Who will maintain our families, whilst we undertake the arduous task” of learning a new trade? Also, they asked, what will happen if the new trade, in turn, gets devalued by further technological advance?

So the issue seems to be one of person vs. convenience (again, the washing machine example). 

But is that truly the case?



We’ve all felt this way…
© Ron Sumners, 123rf.com



False Premise

While a washer is a great invention, someone had to invent it.  Someone else had to build it.  Another person had to sell it.  And then someone has to be there to push the button.  So a lot of “someones” are still needed to complete the act of washing clothes.  In fact, more someones are needed then in the past.

So one could say that technology has not only improved the life of the washerwoman, but also that of the inventor, factory worker, store owner, and sales staff.

 

On the other, greener concerned hand, it uses electricity, which is in turn fueled by natural  and often non-renewable, resources, which is gathered in ways that are not always healthy or environmentally safe and sustainable.

And that is a whole other can of worms.

For now, it seems true to say that one can still have convenience without neglecting the human aspect.

And the answer is. . .

Krugman’s article, while doing a great job bringing up the issue, falls short by proposing a solution that is flawed and incomplete:  

...the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

It sounds great, but it’s too easy.    

Especially considering that the whole point of the article is that technology is replacing both white collar and blue collar workers.  If that is the case, then who is going to pay for this social safety net?  He mentions taxes, but how are workers who are already suffering going to be able to afford these taxes?  This "solution" only creates more disparity and hardship for those it supposedly helps.  Krugman doesn’t explore the consequences of a tax-based solution, which is essentially just throwing money at a problem.  Unfortunately, this seems to be a fairly typical Western/American reaction: forget about finding the root cause, just take care of the symptom.

So the question still remains: what does the future hold for highly skilled workers whose skills may be taken over by technology?   

I’m glad that Krugman is raising the issue and I hope to see a series of articles ~ either by Krugman or others ~ addressing and truly debating different answers.

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

Let's start the conversation!  What do you think?

Love Is Kind

Don’t flatter yourself that friendship authorizes you to say disagreeable things to your intimates. The nearer you come into relation with a person, the more necessary do tact and courtesy become.
~ Oliver Wendall Holmes

Common courtesy is not so common anymore. The little polite phrases most of us were taught as children have all but disappeared from our daily conversations and interactions. Why have we stopped being polite to one another? I have addressed this topic before ~ focusing more on courtesy to strangers; now I wish to bring it a little closer to home and discuss proper behaviour towards loved ones.

One would think that such a discussion would not be needed; treating loved ones well seems so obvious. Sadly, such is not the case. Recently, this was brought home to me as I was the recipient on two separate occasions of very wounding and outright rude comments made to me by people I trusted. And while being on this side of the curtain now, I am sure that being a fallen human being, I have likewise said rude and hurtful things to friends and loved ones in the past as well.

Why do we do this? Now, one could posit that I was hurt because the words were spoken by those whose affection and good opinion I desire ~ the heart feels safe in the presence of loved ones and so does not protect itself as it does with strangers. While there is truth to that, in both these cases, the hurtful words I experienced no lady or gentleman would ever speak to anyone, let alone a dear friend or potential girlfriend. They are things that just are not said in polite company. Again, why do we do this? Does familiarity truly breed contempt?

Or perhaps, as Oliver Wendall Holmes points out, we somehow feel justified in “speaking our minds.” Things may be topsy-turvy these days, but I am pretty sure imprudent speech is still a vice and not a virtue. It is one thing to take a loved one aside and caution them about some potentially dangerous behavior [and even then, such ‘fraternal correction’ should be done with love, humility, tact and kindness]. It is quite another to make rude comments about their person, appearance, character and otherwise treat them as a comfortable old shoe. And old shoe you step on and throw into the corner after a long day. We should never be that comfortable with a loved one. If we would never think of saying X to a stranger lest we give offense, how much more careful should we be with the vulnerability of our loved ones, who have trusted us and let us in where no other may enter, save perhaps God.

Society today so abhors formality ~ but formality and courtesy are not the same thing. One can be exceedingly formal and still ride roughshod over everyone’s feelings. A friend once remarked that he was fine with throwing out archaic rules of etiquette as long as new ones were created in their place. Our society did one without doing the other and culture has suffered as a consequence. Courtesy oils the wheels of daily life. It is difficult enough as it is ~ we go about our day battered by bosses, co-workers, and obliviously rude strangers on the train. At the very least, we should expect a little more kindness and warmth from our loved ones.

So the next time you feel the need to “speak honestly” to someone in a way that would be hurtful and pointless, don't.

Oremus pro invicem,
~ Mikaela

In a Manner of Speaking

Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter which fork you use.
~ Emily Post

Cutting down on as much carbon emissions and gasoline usage as possible by taking public transportation as often as you can is something I advocate but had not until recently been able to do. Happily, a recent job change enabled me to leave my car at home and take the metro every day. I discovered that in addition to saving me time, gas and money, the switch also: 1) provides me with some much needed “think” time in the morning and evening; 2) greatly reduced my road rage; 3) potentially saves lives and limbs as I no longer wonder what happened in between leaving work and getting home, so engrossed in my thoughts I usually am; and 4) enables me to people watch. And let me tell you, colour matters! ;-)

Don't believe me? Take a ride on the Orange Line during rush hour ~ either in the morning or in the evening. Then take a ride on the Blue Line the next day at the same times. I have been doing this for five weeks straight now and I have noticed a marked difference between the manners of Orange Line riders and Blue Line riders. If you are so unfortunate as to be stuck on the Orange Line, make sure you get up and wiggle your way to the door AT LEAST two to three stops before you need to get off. Noone moves out of the way for passengers getting off at a stop on the Orange Line. And if you dare to clear your throat, or murmur a polite “Excuse me”, you get everything from out right glares to blank looks. But no movement.

My road rage may be gone but not my exasperation with stupidity and down right rudeness.

Riders on the Blue Line, however, are much more accommodating; some will even step off the train to let others off, before getting back on themselves. And I have observed this when riding in either direction ~ into the city or out of it. Now, grant you, the Orange Line does have more passengers on it, generally speaking. But that does not explain the attitudes of the people. Blue Line riders are just as tired after a long day, but they still smile and move out of the way. Even when they are packed in tightly during rush hour.

And as long as we are keeping score on rider manners, Blue Line riders are three times more likely to give up their seats for someone older or disabled. I have witnessed this myself. I have yet to see it happen on the Orange Line. But I will allow that I am not on the Orange Line all the time. In fact, I tend to wait an extra four minutes just to ride the more mannerly Blue Line.

So to all your Orange Line riders out there: take a moment and kindly let your fellow passengers through to their stop.

Oremus pro invicem,
~ Mikaela