Giles Slade Is a Writer

As I read further into the book Made to Break by Giles Slade, the writing took a surprising turn. Up till the third chapter, the book sounded more or less like a history book that is seemingly objective. However, I literally laughed out loud when I got to the detailed imagery in chapter 4 of beautiful dark haired Marion Armstrong's "broad-brimmed hat twisting and flapping in the wind"(pg 105). I understand that this is Slade's attempt to give the innovators he mentions life and character but...really? For a few paragraphs it sounded like Slade's writing is an excerpt from some romance novel. The love stories,  and social scandals mentioned  by Slade definitely made this part of the reading somewhat comical and refreshing.

On a more serious note, chapters 4,5 and 6 of Made to Break posed some interesting information on why Americans fell into the hole of obsolescence. The creation of things like small radios, synthetic fibers, and of course cars are discussed by Slade as tools of obsolescence in America. What I understand from the reading is that manufacturers and innovators took advantage of quick and cheap mechanical assembly of products to lower the durability of products and also the price of the product. These low prices then tempt consumers who eventually find the product disposable when it breaks and therefore do not hesitate to replace it with a product of equal durability and cost. Judging from this shallow overview of the situation, it would seem that Americans are not the smartest of consumers but are they to blame? E. S. Stafford suggests that consumers are subject to "forced feeding" (pg 165) by American Companies. What Stafford means by this is that with the attractive, hip and cool advertisement and packaging of products, consumers are almost  brainwashed into buying these products. The example of "Madison Avenue...marketing new goods, new fads, new symbolic gestures of defiance"(pg 179) is given. Phychological obsolescence is the factor of all these things.

This mention of the introduction of new goods reminds me of Computers by  Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro. Computers displays the ongoing innovation in computer technology and how the invention of one thing replaces the invention of an older model. When I first read Computers, my reaction to this was positive and only thought it to be progressive. With this new view on obsolescence, the wastage of materials, energy comes to mind. However, I have concluded that if the product contributes to the advancement of society, the obsolescence of another product that is older and less efficient can be spared.

Why American Things Don't Last

Giles Slade came out with the book Made to Break in 2006 which exposes America's habit of making their products obsolete. It was interesting to read in the first three chapters about how the minds of American manufacturers began to gravitate towards obsolete products and screw over their consumers. As explained by Slade, the overproduction resulting from the shift from man-powered economy to machine-driven industry in the late 1950s only resulted in repetitive consumption(pg 9). The whole idea of America becoming a technology consumed society has been introduced by Niel Postman in his book Technopoly; Postman explains that the American character is "so congenial to the sovereignty of technology" (pg. 95) and Americans have become technophiles who are lovers of technology and can only think of technology positively. During the industrial era of the United States, manufacturers could not lessen their use of machinery.
There are a few terms which Slade presents as contributors to the development of obsolescence in America. In the late 19th century, American companies relied on increasing and sustaining demand and distribution of their products in order to sell all the products that they were overproducing as a result of industrial machines (pg 10). This was done by branding, fancy packaging, advertising and making disposable products. This created the "disposable culture" or "the throwaway ethic"; consumers would rather have the instant gratification of having an inexpensive product which was disposable than saving up their money to buy an expensive product (pg 15). these products included disposable paper shirts, dollar Yankee pocket watches, disposable Star safety razors and sanitary napkin(pg 13-17). "As the disposable trend continued, it became culturally permissible to throw away objects that could not simply and conveniently be consumed by flames"(pg 24) like food and coal.

All of these things led in psychological, progressive and planned obsolescence. Psychological obsolescence's key feature is the "self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion"(pg 53) because companies came out with new models of products like silverware and automobiles every year. Progressive obsolescence encouraged psychological obsolescence because it sought to "elevate Sloan's practice of annual model changes to an economic habit that would sustain America's economy by means of perpetual consumption and growth in all industries" (pg 58). Planned obsolescence is even more disturbing because manufacturers would sell products with planned short lifespans.

This reading did not surprise me with the concept of obsolescence in America but instead the idea of compensating overproduction with repetitive consumption. The fact that consumers have fallen for marketing of cheap products makes me question how many priceless resources like coal have been disposed of because of blind consumption. It would be interesting to hear what advocates of American made products have to say after reading this book.

Wikipedia: Social Network/Encyclopedia

    In the last four chapters of  The World and Wikipedia Andrew Dalby tries to convince me that my feelings towards Wikipedia is not just a superficial like but a meaningful love and that I can one day strengthen my trust in it. I have to say that I am not convinced because most of Dalby's points are directed towards active members of Wikipedia and I am just a reader. However Dalby makes sound and provoking statements.
    Dalby starts off the second half of his book by giving a glimpse of what editors and contributors go through in order to produce an article. By reading about this I realized for the first time that Wikipedia is a social network. Never before had my eyes wandered away from the content of the articles on Wikipedia to the top right corner of the page where the "Log in/create an account" link sits. Judging from the information given by Dalby on the feuds and scandal involving Wikipedia's network of people, wikipedians are charismatic and opinionated. A particularly funny conversation on a Wikipedia talk page is between wikipedians The Cunctator, Robert Merkel and founders Lawrence Sanger and Jimmy Wales ; this conversation consists of a dispute over the proposed establishment, by Sanger, of a Wikipedia militia/guard/committee that basically "...keep things running in any emergency"(pg 23). It is humorous because everything from trollish behavior to free buffets are discussed reminiscent of a playground fight. As a result of this conversation, however, administrators of Wikipedia were given the right to delete on sight any new page if it "...is nothing but vandalism, or a misspelling, or totally unsuited to an encyclopedia..."(pg 124); and so, to say that Wikipedia's talk page consists of meaningless banter is an understatement. Harassment between wikipedians is also common and is the reason why many wikipedians have deleted their accounts. Some of the reasons which Dalby gives to explain why many more people continue to join and participate in Wikipedia is because they enjoy the social aspect, the sharing of knowledge and the eternal truth of Wikipedia; wikipedian Ram-man claims:"It's fun for me."(pg 118).
    The global use of Wikipedia and controversies related to them were also interesting to read about. As it turns out, American scholarly encyclopedias are not the only ones suffering from Wikipedia's popularity; Germany's Brokhaus and Norway's Store norske leksikon are a few foreign encyclopedias which have stopped producing print versions (pg 199) due to drops in sales. I was surprised to learn that Germany actually gave state funding to German Wikipedia. Another shocker was that "Microsoft finally announced in March 2009 that Encarta, both DVD and online, was closing down."(pg 201); Encarta was one of the "reliable" sources that my teachers in grade school encouraged me to use.
    With all of these changes in the market of encyclopedias, Dalby points out an important fact about Wikipedia's articles; he states that "Wikipedia tends to ensure...that it is never ahead of the consensus of opinion but always slightly behind it." (pg 195). This is to minimize the potential of false information floating around as a result of Wikipedia. In the book Computers:The Life Story of a Technology by Eric Swedin and David Ferro it is stated that in the year 2000, studies showed that "51 percent of U.S. families owned a computer and 41 percent of U.S. homes had Internet access"(pg 132). With this information, when it is considered that Wikipedia was named the seventh most popular online reference work by Alexa the influence that Wikipedia has on society is immense(pg 192).Jimmy Wales is aware of this and so both he and many wikipedians try to be responsible posters of information on the internet (pg 223). Because of this, Dalby claims that "Wikipedia has grown up" ( pg 225).
     Given this information, I am now better equipped to navigate through Wikipedia. Sited information are the most reliable and I will not rely on Wikipedia for the "First news on what's about to happen"(195). Niel Postman states in his book Technopoly the fear that "Cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without controlled mechanisms.”(pg 70) but if contributors of Wikipedia continue to edit and control the information presented in Wikipedia, people will continue to have free access to valid information about the world.  

    
 

Professor Wikipedia

Wikipedia [like]

     If Google had those Facebook "like" buttons for the websites it displays, I would definitely press that like button for Wikipedia. With all the forewarnings from high school history teachers to biology professors about how unreliable Wikipedia is for a scholarly final paper on the gulf war or on a lab report, Wikipedia has provided me with easy access to valid information on many subjects. Andrew Dalby in his book The World and Wikipedia: How we are Editing Reality more or less supports my preference to use Wikipedia over all other encyclopedias. As a wikiepdian himself, Dalby knows the processes which take place in the presentation of information on Wikipedia and makes a thorough and insightful argument on why Wikipedia, despite it's 32% error rate, continues to be a strong competitor against other reputable online encyclopedias.
    Neupedia, established by Jimmy Wales, was the predecessor of Wikipedia and was created to be a scholarly web-based encyclopedia. Since then, Wikipedia has become an interactive website where the general public can write and edit articles on various topics which is why many users of Wikipedia regard Wikipedia "To be refreshingly democratic"(pg 54). It cannot be argued that Wikipedia has proved to be a global broadcast of information which is easy to use and available to all. Dalby talks about the "circle of knowledge"(pg 21) which Wikipedia has become, providing it's services in 265 languages and allowing the writing and critiquing of articles by people around the world.
    To the many who have opposed my use of Wikipedia, Dalby's information on how more and more professionals and scholars in the subjects presented in Wikipedia are contributing to the site is a strong rebuttal. Articles are posted on Wikipedia on an hourly bases with hundreds of people adding cited information and statistics while others are editing the information which are questionably false. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is becoming a respectable and notorious online encyclopedia like the tried and true encyclopedias promoted by schools. I would venture to say that if Gaius Plinious Secundus, the famous encyclopedist, were alive today, he would prefer Wikipedia over Encyclopedia Britannica because of the problem of revising and updating encyclopedias which Wikipedia has solved.
     Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly, states that he wants America to be a society where"The philosophies of science, of history, of language, of technology and of religion"(pg. 199) are taught to everyone. If the public is charged a sum of money to view information pertaining to these subjects, it is inevitable that people will be less willing obtain those information. As supported by the Nature survey mentioned by Dalby, Wikipedia's free and public source is more attractive to information seekers. And so, Wikipedia can contribute to Neil Postman's efforts to educate America.
    My reading and analysis of Andrew Dalby's book is unquestionably biased and I will admit it. On an side note, I went on Wikipedia after my reading to research Encyclopedia Britannica and there was an unbiased lengthy article on it's history. However, I went on  Encyclopedia Britannica's website and found a five line description of Wikipedia before it asked me to subscribe.       

The Not So Crazy Neil Postman

    I ended my last post on Technopoly by Neil Postman in wonder of how Postman would prefer the American society to be and it is roughly stated in the second half of his book; this, of course,is not presented until Postman states a few more things on how technology has taken over American culture. To briefly summarize these things, I believe that the image of the "tail wagging the dog" (pg. 142) drawn by Postman is a good introduction. Basically, Postman believes that technology is the tail in this analogy and the dog is the human race. For instance, Postman lists a slew of medical statistics which show that American doctors are using medical technologies more often and rigorously than other countries in Europe including England, France and Germany. It is then explained by Postman that this is due to the American character that is "so congenial to the sovereignty of technology" (pg. 95). Postman believes that technological innovations are not synonymous with human progress because the traditions of humans and our mental and physical skills are "lost by our immersion in a computer culture"(pg.122). Other things like images of Christ and symbols of nationalism are considered by Postman to be "diminished in importance"(pg. 166) by technology because the availability and mass print of these things "drains it of its symbolic value"(pg. 166). In the end however, Postman seems to acknowledge that his objective is to raise enough awareness of the dangers of Technopoly and to get people to resist the dangerous outcomes of technology which he so generously devotes his book to listing.
     The shock effect that Postman wanted in his writing is there but it is obvious that Postman is not just a crazy ranting man. It is Technopoly's last chapter which saves Neil Postman from being the most narrow minded King Thamus which he proclaims himself to be. Postman states that resistors of American Technopoly "admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest possible form of human achievement"(pg. 184). And so, it is fair to assume that Postman would not appose to the reading of Computers:The Life Story of a Technology by Eric Swedin and David Ferro because it not only highlights humanity's technological achievements in the field of computers but also other achievements like numbers and counting methods.
    Postman's overall goal in my opinion is sane and achievable. To remind and teach the human race about "The philosophies of science, of history, of language, of technology and of religion"(pg. 199)  is to make society rich in it's knowledge of human culture; a culture which does not revolve around technology. However, I still believe that to call America a Technopoly is a general and biased opinion. I understand that Postman has written this book to mainly reach out to people who are immersed in technological advancements, but I am convinced that there is a population of Americans, however small that ratio may be when compared to technophiles, who share Niel Postman's appreciation for morality and philosophy among other human abilities.

Cyborg? Already?

    If I were to make note the top ten most shocking newsflashes I have come across, CNN's artlicle "Cyborgy professor looks to future of bionic technology" would be on the list. This article is about Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at Reding University. In 1998 Warwick had a radio frequency ID chip implanted in his arm and since then, he has found that the implant allows him to "turn on lights by snapping fingers, open doors without touching them." Later, in 2002 Warwick discovered that his wife can take control of his body with the use of her own brain waves when he connects his nerve to electrodes. Currently, Warwick is researching "brain interfaces and autonomous robots" and because this is helping to understand how to treat braind diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinson's, the Royal Society of Medicine will be awarding him the Ellison Cliffe Medal next year.
    Kevin Warwick's research regarding brain interface is exciting when the possibilities of medical advancements are considered. However, when discussing this article with fellow students, there was an overall consensus that brain interface is both good and bad. For example, one student claimed that the utilization of brain interface to control dietary issues would be disturbing if the technology used forcefully stops a person from eating "that chocolate cake that you want" that Warwick mentions. Also, Social Justice would be challenged by brain interface and body control since the dignity of humans might be degraded if they have to rely on technology to control their behavioral problems such as overeating. One thing that was for certain during the class discussion and that was the shock that this bionic technology exists today. A classmate posed the question: "What else are they hiding from us?"
    My personal opinion of Kevin Warwick is that he is an odd man, however irrelevant this may be to the analysis of  this article. Warwick has a fear that "humans will someday fall behind the advances of robots we're building" and believes that upgrades on the human body with the use technology is needed to prevent this. I find this to be a disturbing idea because a fear of technology is obviously present in Warwick. The article alludes to this fear by mentioning how "He has very little technology at home, and counts 'The Terminator' among his biggest influences." This proves that fear is a sure fire way to generate innovation.