Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, August 4, 1995 TAG: 9508240095
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JUSTIN ASKINS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
I doubt I would have finished my doctoral dissertation without a computer, and I am writing right now on a laptop. Computers have allowed me to become the writer and editor I am, and I praise them for many of their qualities, as most people do.
However, there is one main problem with the computer age, and to a lesser extent with other contemporary technology: the Toffleresque speed at which it changes. I see no problem with change. Even many Native American rituals have altered over time. It is the rapidity of evolution that deeply bothers me.
With most products, extended use is stressed (remember the Maytag repairman or the Chevy truck built like a rock), but with computers especially, there is no acceptable period of use. Even if one leaves a store with a state-of-the-art product, there is the knowledge that the next day, week or month, it will be obsolete. What a terrifying thought. And the same is true of the software that is being developed at an amazing pace.
I have spoken to many people about this issue - other educators, students, secretaries, lawyers - and almost unanimously they agreed that the turnover is too fast. As soon as a newer version or model comes out, there is almost immediate belief - strongly reinforced by the computer industry - that one must replace the older materials, even if they are doing the job quite satisfactorily. This is rampant consumerism, veiled in a haze of words like "pentium chip" and "eight megabytes of RAM," terms I'm sure are already horribly dated.
Many other manufacturers use the same type of advertising - automotive and audio equipment, for example - but most of us realize that a car is a car and that there is actually a distinctive panache attached to a '57 Chevy. This is not only because of the styling involved, but because a '57 Chevy with a big engine is actually a decent automobile, quite fast even if not fuel-efficient.
Even the oldest of the restored classic cars function admirably, and who hasn't noticed a shiny armada of them tooling down the interstate? On the other hand, who would want the TRS Model III computer I did my dissertation on? No one. Old computers are just junk. In the field of music, there have also been rapid developments - CDs being the most important - but manufacturers still produce cassettes and cassette players. Think what would have happened if the music companies simply stopped producing records and cassettes right after CDs began to gain popularity more than 10 years ago. People would have rebelled. Instead, most changes take a fairly long period of time, which reassures consumers that they will get a reasonable amount of use.
Computers and their software simply don't allow us the fundamental expectation of a reasonable amount of use. And I think something ought to be done about it. I thought of filing a suit against Apple or IBM based on a constitutional right to freedom of access (after all, who can afford to stay up with the onslaught?), but my lawyer friends thought it a thoroughly implausible approach.
Instead, what I think will work is an organization called the Slow Technology Down Foundation. A member will function somewhat like the fool in King Lear, a character who speaks freely and honestly but is not taken very seriously - at least until it is too late. Members would receive a card - signed by me - that would entitle them, among many other benefits such as discount psychiatric care, to reject the new software put on their desks if they have learned a different or earlier form of the program within the past two years.
It is questionable whether the rapid changes with computers have made us more efficient. A worker who has to spend several weeks or even months learning a new program is certainly not being efficient during that transition period. And if that person has to learn a new program six months later and switch to a new computer six months after that - all the while trying to keep up with the latest virus protection program - I'm dubious about the overall increase in productivity.
What we seem to have forgotten is that technology is created by people, and that the few who develop it can be held to reasonable standards if the rest of us decide to hold them accountable. I think it is time.
Justin Askins is an associate professor in the English department at Radford University.
by CNB