The
Myth of 'High Tech' 9/28/00 By
Stanislav Kelman
You may
be among the many who (incorrectly) believe that "high tech"
is now all around us.
|
If you are one of those people
who blindly trust the mass media, you were probably led to believe
that "high tech" is now all around us. But next time you hear this
omnipresent expression, stop for a brief moment to ponder its
meaning. I bet that you will be surprised at what now passes for the
so-called "cutting-edge technology."
When informally asked
about their own interpretation of "high tech," most folks would not
think twice before telling you all about "that one site they saw on
the Internet" or "the cool PC upgrade they got on sale." Indeed,
computers are fascinating and, in all honesty, I would not be
writing this article if I did not think they were. However, what I'm
trying to point out is that most of what's available to the general
public is dirt cheap mass produced lowest-common-denominator stuff
that ceased to resemble anything "advanced" quite a few years
ago.
The fact of the matter
is that the basic principle of the Internet, the "packet switching"
concept, dates back to 1961 when it was introduced by Leonard
Kleinrock of MIT. The still-dominant Ethernet hardware specification
was originally developed in 1973 at Xerox PARC. And, by 1983, TCP/IP
was accepted as a universal digital communications standard.
Perhaps, what most people don't realize is that in the mid-eighties
the Internet was already a vast network interconnecting tens of
thousands of computers worldwide.
Believe it or not,
little has fundamentally changed since 1989, the year when Tim
Berners-Lee laid out the groundwork for what later came to be known
as the World Wide Web. While this limited scientific information
exchange effort has since evolved into a cultural phenomenon, all
the subsequent "technological breakthroughs" mostly boil down to
little more than grossly over-hyped evolutional
developments.
Lets fast forward to
the year 2000 and check out the "latest advances" that everybody is
so excited about. For example, consider all the enthusiasm
surrounding the MP3 standard, perhaps the first ever "innovation" in
the audio reproduction technology that sacrifices sound quality for
the ease of illegal music distribution. Now, look at the "hot
developments" in the e-mail technology where reliable
standards-compliant desktop clients are being quickly replaced with
slow browser-based solutions complete with their awkward
Web interfaces packed with ad banners. And, while you are at it,
witness the gradual death of the UseNet community forums as they are
being supplanted with proprietary Slashdot-style
flame-boards.
Now, let's talk about
the people who are driving the so-called "New Economy." In sharp
contrast with the brilliant researchers who made the Internet
possible, the new crop of Web developers are mostly stereotypical
Silicon Valley college dropouts whose aspirations are largely
centered on stock options. Many modern "high tech workers" have
little interest in basic science or technology. While it is still
necessary to have a college degree to become, say, a librarian, even
a high school diploma is an over-qualification for many of the
advertised "high tech" positions.
In some cases, cramming
the first few chapters of the "Web Design for Dummies" can land one
a better-paying job than a Ph.D. in neural science. What's even more
alarming is that academic education itself is now being looked down
upon as something that does not provide sufficient monetary return
to be of any value whatsoever. Perhaps, for the first time in the
history of technology, having a strong scientific background became
a drawback rather than an advantage.
As for the "New
Economy" itself, only a handful of "dot-coms" are coming out with
innovative ideas. Lately, it seems like the majority of the
high-flying "technology" firms offer little more than glorified
catalog shopping, basically fitting a hundred-year-old idea with a
new pretty face. Besides, since when did opening a small-scale
grocery store become a "high tech" enterprise, worthy of a
multi-million venture capital investment? Suddenly, we are living in
the world where everybody who has a PC and twenty bucks for a
prepackaged "e-commerce solution" can become a "high tech
entrepreneur."
A couple of weeks ago,
I was reading the Sunday New York Times when I came across an
article authored by Timothy Draper, one of California's premier
"high tech" venture capital investors. In his writing, he claims
that "the Internet is the greatest revolution in the history of the
world." While, understandably, somebody who has made a fortune
investing in the nineties might think that the Web is the most
important invention ever, I can easily name dozens of technologies
that have had far more impact. For starters, how about the wheel,
the plow, the printing press, running water, electricity, internal
combustion, the phone, the microchip, or space travel?
What's even more
disturbing is that Mr. Draper proceeds to testify that the Internet
enables a company to "reach all six billion of us," which could
somehow "power a 12-fold increase in the world economy." This is
wishful thinking at best and deliberate deception at worst. The fact
that a poor farmer somewhere in Ethiopia can purchase a luxury
automobile online does not automatically mean that he would
magically be able to afford one. And, if he would have had the money
in the first place, chances are that not having Internet access
would not have prevented him from buying the car of his dreams
anyway.
The above is just one
example of corporate propaganda that is cultivating the myth of
"high tech." The reality is that in the U.S. alone, there are close
to ten million people whose only purpose in life is to provide
"information technology" development and support, making sure that
typing a letter, one of the simplest everyday tasks, is still
possible even given all the "productivity enhancements" offered by
the "digital revolution."
Historically, the term
"high tech" was used to refer to groundbreaking developments coming
out of research institutions and laboratories, not the hastily
thrown together low quality commercial products available to
everybody. It puzzles me why companies like AOL and Amazon are
considered "high tech" while Boeing and General Dynamics are not.
For all I know, sky-high market valuations should not have much to
do with that. Or, am I living in the past?
Author's background:
Stanislav
Kelman is not as
old and grumpy as he might sound. The only reason he knows a little
bit about the origins of the Internet is that he has spent some time
exploring the numerous online resources on the subject, including
those offered by the Internet
Society. Also, he has been maintaining his own site, LetItBe.org for almost
five years now. Feel free to contact him at osOpinion@LetItBe.org.
|