> >My point was a different one -- that we shouldn't romanticise the customs
>of the past. Record them, enjoy them in hindsight, investigate why they
>arose -- but don't accord them any special sanctity. They were merely
>decorations that grew around the basic technology of the time. >
Hi Keith,
I don't disagree, though you do say it a little more bluntly than I would. I
would add that there may be a sequence here that has been of historic
importance. This is: changing circumstances => adoption of new technology =>
cultural change.
Whatever the mode of production and technology of the time, "changing
circumstances" have most often concerned the ratio between people and
resources. When population grew or resources declined, new ways of filling
needs had to be found. The transition from migratory hunting and gathering
to sedentary agriculture was, one can speculate, brought about by declining
game resources abetted by the diffusion of the atl-atl and bow and arrow.
The transition probably happened sporadically here and there as the new
technologies required by an agricultural society were diffused, but the end
result was an enormous change in circumstances, technology and culture.
I'm wondering if such a sequence still applies today. It is possible that
it has become reversed and should now be: cultural change => adoption of new
technology => changing circumstances. It would seem that much of the
technology that is being adopted by the entire world today is driven by the
diffusion of western culture and not by changes in the population: resource
balance. And much of the innovation is of a "software" rather than
"hardware" character. Getting even the poorest parts of the world to accept
Macdonald's hamburgers or Coca Cola has nothing to do with filling basic
needs but everything to do with creating artificial wants. But once the
wants have been created, technology must enter the picture in the form of
golden arches or a bottling plant and everything that is needed to support
these things, including western management techniques. We may indeed no
longer have a meaningful sequence at all (assuming that we once had one).
Consider the jet aircraft. All countries now have airports able to
accommodate Boeing 747s, even the poorest. Yet has this really brought
about changes in the circumstances of the vast majority of the people who
live in those countries? Not likely.
Ed Weick
