January 2000

Taking a Bold Step Forward into a New Age of Ludditism

Well, the world didn't end. As we face the 21st century with bright-eyed optimism, I'd like to take the first installment in a new era to offer a thought on how we might benefit from a slightly different look at how we consider the use of technology in the days to come.

I confess that I really don't like computers (and I'm not all that crazy about TV remote controls, either). Symptomatic of a society that has become fast-forward, call-forward, e-mail-forward, caller-ID-checking-to-decide-if-I'll-answer, pushing-the-desired-floor-button simultaneously with the elevator-door-close-button (which I have always suspected doesn't do anything no matter how many times you push it), we seem to be rushing entropically into the embrace of the "hows" and "whats" of technology at the expense of the "whys". . . and that makes me just a little sad.

I'm not saying that technology is bad. I'm not even implying it. Technology has been extremely useful to me and will continue to be so. Having used technology for so many years and having watched it evolve, I rarely find an innovation that dazzles me. Computers are merely tools. They allow us to find information at speeds that make the mind boggle. Oh yeah, they're good for games, too. But I find it very tedious to see the technology being used just because it's there and not necessarily because it's needed, or because we find it more convenient to rely on the results of a computational process at the expense of rolling a problem around in our minds and considering it from different angles and viewpoints, (essentially at the expense of using our minds). Moreover, because information is so readily available, it seems that some folks are losing their abilities to view that information with a critical eye. Clearly, the only printed word that is to be taken at face value is mine.

Norbert Weiner had this to say regarding The Human Use of the Human Mind in 1950:

Any machine constructed for the purpose of making decisions, if it does not possess the power of learning, will be completely literal-minded. Woe to us if we let it decide our conduct, unless we have previously examined the laws of its action, and know fully that its conduct will be carried out on principles acceptable to us! On the other hand, the machine...which can learn and can make decisions on the basis of its learning, will in no way be obliged

to make such decisions as we should have made, or will be acceptable to us. For the man who is not aware of this, to throw the problem of his responsibility on the machine, whether it can learn or not, is to cast his responsibility to the winds, and to find it coming back seated on the whirlwind.

I have spoken of machines, but not only of machines having brains of brass and thews of iron. When human atoms are knit into an organization in which they are used, not in their full right as responsible human beings, but as cogs and levers and rods, it matters little that their raw material is flesh and blood. What is used as an element in a machine, is in fact an element in a machine. Whether we entrust our decisions to machines of metal, or to those machines of flesh and blood which are bureaus, and vast laboratories and armies and corporations, we shall never receive the right answers to our questions unless we ask the right questions...

Well, maybe it's not that I dislike computers so much. Maybe it's just that I'm not too keen on how they tend to be abused. We've revved ourselves up to such a pace that we seem to be forgetting the very essence of why we do what we do. We're forgetting the meaning of commitments to friends and families, simply because "we just don't have the time" or because the goal of the pursuit is being confused with the ancillary fiscal aspects of the pursuit. Perhaps the beginning of the new millennium is a great time to reassess our real goals. Having done so, hopefully the exponentially increasing pace of our professional lives will be tempered by a renewed, clear view of what we hold most important. But, don't stop to think, and then forget to start again, as our lives will increase in pace.

Researchers at Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, UK (in true Luddite fashion) have resurrected a technology that has always "warmed" my heart: the vacuum tube! More accurately, they have created a prototype "nanotriode," or vacuum-based electronic switch. The millions of transistors in today's silicon chips are basically triode switches. Vacuum triodes have a distinct edge over transistors in several areas: vacuum tubes can support higher currents, their electrons travel faster, and their performance isn't significantly affected by temperature changes. The bottom line is that an estimated 10 billion of these devices could be manufactured on a "platform" about the size of a dime, having the computing power of approximately one million of today's high-end laptops. Where can I buy that stock???

Similarly, an Israeli company is demonstrating applications of a technology they call fluorescent multilayer, or FM. A prototype FMD-ROM disk can store 140 gigabytes (roughly 30 times as much as a DVD and over 200 times as much as a CD-ROM). A ClearCard, about the size of a credit card, can store 10 GB, or 2500 times as much as a standard smartcard. (Embedded in the plastic of a smartcard are electronics capable of memory and processing.) Storing data in multiple layers brings about these stunning capacities. The company says they are working with 20-layer technology in the lab and see no practical upper limit. They have filed over 70 patents for the technology and hope to have FM storage devices and media on the market within a year. Of greatest significance is their ability to achieve one gigabyte per second reads.

These are only two examples of the technologies we will see in the very near future: the "whats" and "hows." Why we use them is a question we should continually ask ourselves. While the phenomenal growth of information requires the use of quick access tools, we need to remain vigilant in our efforts not to be lulled into a false sense of security. Being able to access enormous amounts of information in mere seconds tends to lead us away from acquiring knowledge that is inherent in reading and pondering.

Have a great month and a great new year! Next month, I'll pack away my soapbox and we'll take a look at the effects of what will likely become one of the more controversial decisions in recent years.

After spending 25 years in software engineering and development, Rob Apgood suffered a mid-life crisis that seriously affected his judgment. As a result, he relinquished his pocket-protector, acquired a law degree, and, when not out riding on his Harley, can be found most days at the law offices of Siderius Lonergan indulging in latent Luddite tendencies.

Back to table of contents>>