About a fortnight ago I was discussing the “Second Life” online platform with Leigh-Anne and I fobbed it off as a ‘transitional technology’ that would be soon be replaced with something more functional, engaging, and user-friendly. I made the same remark to a colleague, and they replied, “Well, isn’t everything a transitional technology?” This got me thinking – if everything is a transitional technology, and I ‘opt out’ as a result of an argument that it will soon (or someday in the distant future) be replaced, then will I completely miss out on engaging myself with the modern world?
A fortnight has passed, and after some nudging from Clay Burell I’ve now been tinkering with the possibilities of “Second Life.” In fact, people like Clay, Jeff Utecht, and I are constantly experimenting with these kinds of online tools, as are millions of people around the globe. If I look back on my year, I have to wonder which of these technologies/tools/platforms was worth bothering with in the long run, but also what the concept of “transitional technologies” means for us in this day and age, when the concept of a ‘format war’-ala-Beta Vs. VHS now looks like a walk in the park.
I need to choose a blogging format, a video publishing format, an audio compression format for my ‘mp3’ player that will survive into the future, a photo taking and publishing format, online teaching formats, offline software formats, an operating system, and so many other types of choices that are now much more abstract than they ever were in the past. In previous decades, I may have had to choose a brand of car or washing machine that seemed like a ‘good bet’ so that I could still get parts in the future, but now I’m not just looking at the future of my hardware, I’m gambling with the investment of time that I put into “flash in the pan” websites and software, and also with the prospect that I’ll have to invest double that amount of time storing or saving that information in the future if I want to keep it.
So what is a “transitional technology”…and what is not? Considering that my colleague challenged this concept entirely, I started to make a mental list of things that do not appear to be transitional technologies to me…at least not within the span of a millennium or so. The kinds of ‘technologies’ that sprang to mind included soap, the toilet, a table, glass, knives and forks, chopsticks, and many other items that have an enduring physical quality, due to their day-to-day use around the globe. As for items that are undeniably transitional technologies, I considered iPods, disc players, computers, specific software, websites, and a whole lot of items that are quite obviously in a high state of flux.
However, if a toilet now doesn’t look like a toilet 50 years ago, then isn’t it a transitional technology? Isn’t the function of the toilet what I’m really alluding to as being ‘non-transitional?’ On the flip side, isn’t the function of an iPod exactly the same as an old gramophone record player that my grandparents have – to play music? Hence, I think my colleague was completely correct – the whole point of ‘technology’ is that it’s transitional. I can create a generic term like ‘soap’ and say that it’s not transitional because it’s been around in the form of soap bars for a long time, but haven’t we changed the methods of production and the chemical compounds that go into our soap? The same applies to software: I might create version 401.3.9 of a word processor, but it’s still a word processor. How about a blog? Is my blog any less a blog because the company I chose to set my blog up on was a failed startup, and my blog disappeared?
My ability to use soap is anchored in the fact that I know what the function of soap is, as is my ability to use a word processor, and to blog. Whether or not we are dabbling in the world of ‘transitional technologies,’ it’s difficult to deny that each time we do, we’re building a skillset that allows us to adapt as the technologies themselves metamorphose and transition into their future manifestations.
I think the central question here is to look more closely at function. What do I really want to do with technology? If I want to clean myself I use soap or just water. Which is more effective? If I want to write and communicate then I can choose to use paper and a pencil, or I can choose a blog? What’s my purpose? Do I need something reliable and transportable, or am I more concerned with reaching the widest audience, or am I most concerned with the future security of my writing? A blog can disappear with a server failure, but I could also lose that paper book that I was writing in, or it could go up in a house fire.
Whether physical or digital (which is ultimately stored in a physical fashion – somewhere), it’s all transitional technology. Whether or not something may fade away is not really an excuse to not try to use something. What’s your purpose and does the technology that you choose function in a way that works for you? Furthermore, if the technology isn’t here tomorrow, are there skills that you developed from using the technology that will somehow be useful to you or others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting, J. Might we think of many of these technologies less as "transitional"--to me that suggests something BETWEEN a precursor and successor, and thus fated to extinction--than as something like "evolutionary"?
To switch metaphors--and use Second Life as an example--can we see all of these technology skills as akin to musical ones? Once you learn scales, you still have chords left, and then tonalities, and atonalities, and on and on (the history of Western classical music seems apt as a metaphor here). It's not like learning basic C major was unnecessary, even if you're now composing strictly atonal works.
In the same way, Second Life, blogging, podcasting, whatever--aren't they all more evolving than mutating, by and large?
And if so, then aren't we on the cutting edge of the learning curve and more able to adapt to the new environments as a result?
I think Second Life will obviously evolve radically and soon. But it won't be so radical that its 1.0 skills won't be valuable ones to adapt to 2.0.
Furthermore, isn't it the users--us--who also play a role in determining what survives, and what is extinct? If we use it and attract others to use it too, it--whatever the tech--survives due to our symbiotic support. But if we don't, it stands more of a chance to wither and die.
As I write, I'm also seeing more your basic point: some of these technologies WILL go the way of eight-track cassettes and LPs, simply due to emergent competitors of completely different species. So maybe one day we'll have to learn these new animals.
But at least we'll have the transferable skill-set--answering all the wtf's involved in learning tech--to tame the new beasts too.
That being said, we really need to start seeking a niche in SL!
Post a Comment