Social/ICT Ruminations

Thursday, September 20, 2007

The Information Society

I was particularly drawn to the "Cyberspace and the American Dream" article for this week. The time of publication for this (and the other) article is interesting because some of the issues brought up here were tackled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The article obviously predates this law.

I was fascinated by the use of the phrase "technological sense". Did anyone (including the FCC) ever foresee the possibilities that technology can offer (things like over-the-air HDTV, 3G cell-phone networks/content)? It would seem that most content providers have gone above and beyond what their licenses allowed them to do.

The FCC is about to auction another portion of the spectrum next January. Is the agency or the larger population still able to define it in any particular way that will hold for, say, the next decade? We talked about socio-economic conditions being right for the adoption of technologies. How can we as a society (or the government) plan for technology adoption with such major variables that need to be considered? And how accurate have we been in our predictions thusfar?

Yesterday, I spent 10 minutes in the office without internet access. The break would not have been such a bad thing, if I wasn't bouncing off the walls about not being able to finish my tasks within the stipulated deadline. For all its benefits, how safe is it to incorporate technology as a standard part of the curriculum and without redundancies or backups, especially if we can't live without our "fix" for so much as 10 minutes? Firstly, that could mean canceling the day's class (in itself a great educational and monetary loss).

In purely technological terms, I grew up in the stone ages and can still remember and perhaps relearn to live without computers if the day came. But the paranoid side of me wonders if we're setting up future generations for failure based on how much technology they're served with. Not to mention, this sets up a digital divide across international boundaries, not conducive to a global economy and society.

Enough ranting for now.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A few initial thoughts

1. Is something defined as technology only if it has a wire and a screen running through it (i.e. hardware and software?) or is the invention of the horse carriage also a technological marvel in its own right?

2. As a hypothetical scenario, the residents of Papua New Guinea don't use networking sites like "MyFace" (MySpace + Facebook), LinkedIn, etc. Is it justified for the West to call them less technologically advanced because their social construct demands them to use technology in different ways from the West? In other words, how is social evolution based on technology defined and who is defining it? On the same lines, should anyone be vested with the authority of evaluating this?

3. According to the article "Do Machines Make History", labor-saving machinery will not find ready acceptance in a society where labor is abundant and cheap as a factor of production. This is in direct contradiction to two of the most technologically successful and yet populous countries in the world: India and China. Why is this? Also, how do you think that the implementation of technology in these countries is changing the outlook and occupations of people affected by it?

Hi

Testing this space.