K Wong (UVic) wrote: >I agree with you that technology is a tool. My issue is with the term >"just". When you state that "technology is *just* a tool" you are >minimizing the important and often obscure biases within the technology. >The issue is subtle, but I believe it is significant. > >To use your car analogy, there is nothing stopping someone from >customizing their ride, you are quite right. Adding fuzzy dice is always >a nice touch; however, customizing the car does not affect the biases >within the car which are not changeable. For example, the car uses >petrochemicals which pollute the environment and cause wars. > That is changeable, and there are hybrid and electric cars that prove that.
>The car >operates on roads which ends up in lost farmland. > And that changes, with the use of onboard navigation systems. > Cars cause fatal >accidents. > No, cars do not cause accidents. Drivers are usually the culprits, but sometimes accidents are simply accidents. And rarely are there cases of manufacturer caused accidents, but they also are a factor. Then there are the pedestrians running across the road, the squirrel running across the road... No, I don't think cars themselves cause accidents. > Drinking and driving would not be possible without cars. > It wouldn't be possible without alcohol or drivers. And, for the record, one can be arrested for drinking and driving if you're on a bicycle... >The >list is long indeed. > > ? >In economic terms, the characterization is one of negative externalities >or the unknown real cost of ownership. My concern is that by minimizing >these important biases, communities could end up adopting technologies >without knowing their true costs. > > This is what I don't understand. There is no 'cost of ownership' when it comes to technology that I see. There is, however, a cost of *use* of technology. Just because we buy widgets doesn't make us technological; it's the use of the widgets that does so. It's sort of like all that exercise equipment gathering dust somewhere in people's houses and apartments... Buying exercise equipment doesn't make one skinny or muscular, though I do have a theory that if one buys enough of it, one will not be able to afford to eat - and that's certainly something which will cause one to lose weight. But now we're really talking about cost and value, which are separate things despite some genius marketing. >That is my only point. I agree with you on your other points: >responsibility, choice, changing the world and even the Sims. > > I think you actually do agree with what I'm saying... I think the real issues here are 'use vs. own' and 'cost vs. value'. -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxgazette.com http://www.a42.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
