May 20, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for Technology

A better way

December 29, 2000 By Leave a Comment

A Better Way
By Mel Copen December 29, 2000
© Mel Copen, December, 2000

A few days ago the nation was shocked and outraged by another horrible and senseless act. Seven innocent people, employees of a company in Wakefield, Massachusetts, lost their lives, apparently as victims of “rage gone out of control.” The alleged shooter was purportedly angry over a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service in which the IRS had decided to garnishee his wages to pay for back taxes owed. The company that was chosen as the battleground to vent this rage had nothing to do with the underlying situation. It was only complying with the law. The seven people who died had even less involvement. They just happened to work for the company and be there at the time.

The frequency of such incidents seems to be increasing. It is possible that this is not the case and that the only change is heightened media coverage. I doubt it. Easier access to guns and to explosives and the technology to use them has allowed extreme expressions of outrage to become more deadly. But I believe there is something deeper occurring within society that is raising the general level of frustration and irritation. As it does, a greater number of people on the emotional extremes move over the brink. Nothing can justify such outbursts of violence and senseless killing, but it is worth thinking about what is happening within society as a whole that might contribute to this apparent trend.

Most of us are able to control our feelings and keep reactions and the way we express our displeasures within reasonable bounds. But some are not able to do so. An even greater concern is that it seems that the definition of what is considered “reasonable bounds” may be expanding and as it does, the number of people who believe they may have to resort to extreme measure to express their unhappiness may increase.

A fundamental underlying issue is that many people believe they are losing control over important elements of their lives. At a minimum, this results in some frustration, uneasiness and stress. At the extreme, rage and irrational behavior can result.

Growth, combined with lack of planning has been one cause. One only has to travel on GA400 or I-285 to get a sense of this. It is amazing to note the number of conversations in which someone expresses outrage at traffic or at the behavior of other motorists in that traffic. This is not a casual thing. The irritations build. They stem from a feeling of helplessness, being stuck in traffic and unable to get where one desires, the antisocial behavior of other drivers reacting to the same frustrations, and a sense that no one is in control.

Technology has been another cause, both directly and indirectly. Some of us can still remember when it was possible to fix most car problems with a screwdriver and pliers. No longer. We are now dependent upon dealers’ sophisticated equipment to diagnose what has happened within a car’s computerized components. In return, the dealer is dependent upon someone else to repair his “black box” diagnostic machine when it misbehaves.

Cars are relatively simple things. As computerized systems grow, many are starting to become more complex than any one human mind can master. As different teams work on adding to or repairing pieces of these systems, their complexity becomes even greater. The old science fiction plot of the uncontrollable machine gone mad no longer seems so far fetched – ala Hal in the somewhat prophetic movie, “2001″ (note the date). Large segments of our activity come to a screeching halt today if the computers don’t function, or worse, if they malfunction. And getting them fixed can be a daunting task. Anyone who has a “simple” home computer knows this well.

Perhaps the key issue is not that we seem to have less control over many of the things on which we depend, but that we are increasingly isolated from the institutions that are responsible. Organizations are insulating and isolating themselves from the people they eventually serve. Whether we are talking about machines or social systems, there seem to be several factors at work today:

 We live in an age of increasingly complex systems.
 With increasing frequency multiple organizations/agencies are involved in the design and production of components.
 Components are getting more complex and often, all aspects of their interaction are not understood.
 When problems arise, it is becoming more difficult to find out what components are causing the problems and who is responsible for them.
 Most critically, even if you can make the determination, it is becoming harder and harder to communicate with the responsible parties to get the problem resolved.

Today I called about a problem with my long distance telephone bill. The help-phone number they provided threw me into an automated system. Normally if I play like I have a rotary phone, I can skip the number punching and get right to a person. But this system was smart. It recognized my touch-tone phone and refused to let me in without playing its game. I then went through a maze of layers of multiple options, trying to find just one that would lead me to a person. After 5 minutes I was directed to hang up and call another number. I hung up in total frustration. But by now it had become a challenge. This time I got smarter. At one point the automated system asks if you want a credit. I hit “1″ for “yes” and then put in a number that I knew the computer would choke on. Sure enough, it routed me to a “service” person. With all the restraint I could muster, and with the original issue having faded into insignificance, I expressed my concern about how long it took me to reach an individual. The response – “There’s nothing I can do about it. That’s the way all phone companies operate.” When I asked how to contact corporate headquarters to express my concerns I was told “we are not allowed to give out that information. We can only forward your comments.”

This type of experience is familiar to all of us. In the name of efficiency and “improved service,” more and more organizations have set up computerized barriers to isolate themselves from their customers. “Front-line troops” are isolated as well, so that if contact is made, they can only react with preprogrammed responses. Only insiders or VIP customers can get through. These systems may handle some types of situations efficiently but not all. Life is so complex that it is almost impossible to design a computerized decision tree that will consider every alternative without creating a massive structure that requires enormous amounts of time to wade through. But many organizations don’t seem to care. The “client” is treated like an annoyance. Time is saved and unpleasant confrontations are avoided. Besides, if the process is difficult enough, many people will give up and go away. For a monopoly, what difference does it make???

What happens when that organization is not the telephone company and where the issues are not trivial; e.g. the IRS or an emergency health facility or any organization, which is involved, in an “urgent” matter in the eye of the beholder? Worse, what if one gets into a rigid system and cannot reach the source of power – the locus where rational, non- computerized decisions can be made. An angry response shouldn’t surprise anyone. Where emotional instability is also involved, that anger might result in extreme measures, directed at whatever seems remotely connected – or reachable.

As we begin the new millennium, we need to find ways to break down the insulation and build greater people-to-people rapport. We need to make the human element a larger part of the equation, not a smaller one. Organizations that do so are likely to be more successful and have fewer problems than those that don’t. And perhaps by lowering the level of frustration and irritation that seems to be affecting the nation it will also reduce the number of tragedies like that which happened in Wakefield .

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,

A time for reflection

December 2, 2000 By Leave a Comment

A Time for Reflection
By Mel Copen December 2, 2000
© Mel Copen, December 1, 2000

December, 2000! Where did the year go? It seems like only yesterday that everyone was focused on the transition from the 20th to the 21st century and, particularly, the impact of the impending Y2K bug. A few groups actually predicted the end of the world. Others were stocking up with guns, ammunition and survival supplies. But most people were trying to decide how to joyously welcome the new millenium (even though it will not officially arrive until the end of this year). But, incredibly, the first year of the 21st century is almost history and the year 2001 is upon us.

The end of the year is always, for me, a time of reflection – reviewing the past and planning for the future. This year’s overall “balance sheet” is probably typical of recent years. Although the nature of the issues is different each time, consistently we seem to take two steps forward and one back. On the negative side, once bright prospects for peace in the middle east have dimmed; the commission and threat of acts of terrorism, worldwide, continues; we still have no cures for the flu or the common cold; the drug problem is still with us; we continue to wrestle with issues of poverty and equality; and, to add a bit of levity, we’ve had a presidential election worthy of a Keystone Cops scriptwriter. But there is much on the positive side of the ledger: progress in some of the hot spots of Europe; positive prospects for Korea and a start to putting the Vietnam conflict behind us; a continuing strong economy; new information and communication technologies; and a new focus on the importance of education, just to name a few.

This year, thoughts about the past and the future have taken on added significance. The final months of the year also saw the arrival of Bailey, a new granddaughter – starting life in a world that has already been shaped by thousands of years of human activity. What will her future hold? How will the next half-century differ from the last and what is she likely to see and experience as this new millenium starts to unfold?

At the midpoint of the last century, the promise of technology appeared to be especially bright. World War II had ended, and it seemed as if mankind now possessed the power and the freedom to solve all of humanities problems – to eradicate poverty, hunger, disease – and to make this a utopian world with all the comforts and knowledge that this technology could bring. Breakthroughs had come in every important field. Information was expanding exponentially. We had new medicines, communications media, industrial and agricultural chemicals and materials, rockets and power sources. Although many of these advances were born out of the necessities of war, it was a time to think of all the wonderful things that could be accomplished in a new era of peace.

Well, we did cure polio. We figured out how to transplant hearts and other organs and how to create test-tube babies. DNA was discovered. We developed color TV, computers, lasers, Kelvar, CAT scanners, cellular phones, satellite networks, CDs and the Internet. Men traveled to the moon and we built space stations and sent probes out into the universe. During this period the scope and pace of technological change accelerated at an incredible rate. Not too many years ago, the direction and speed of such change was reasonably predictable and could be extrapolated from past accomplishments. But today change is occurring so rapidly and, simultaneously on so many fronts, and in such seemingly discontinuous fashion that it is hard to predict what will happen and when.

It took millennia for mankind to progress from the legends of Icarus to the dreams of Leonardo DaVinci to the Wright brother’s flight at Kitty Hawk. But even then, after man finally achieved flight, it is doubtful that Wilber or Orville could have conceive of 747’s transporting hundreds of passengers at a time around the globe or space shuttles making almost-routine runs to orbiting space stations – and the transition time was measured in decades, not centuries. Where will technology take Bailey and her generation? Three-dimensional holographic communications, commercial space travel, controlled genetic manipulation and mutation and even the Star-trek type of “beaming” people and things around may very well come to pass within her lifetime. The possibilities for speculation are almost endless.

But there is catch. Looking back over the last half century, it is clear that some of us clearly live better, more comfortable lives. But that last half of the century also brought the cold war, Vietnam, Uganda, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kosovo, AIDS, increased juvenile violence and drugs. Not much progress was made in eliminating poverty, ignorance, bigotry and misery in much of the world. And deterioration continued as we saw increases in urban sprawl, horrendous traffic, air pollution and destruction of significant elements of the ecology. The peace that was supposed to follow the first and then the second “war to end all wars” still eludes us. Clearly, progress with technology is not a solution by itself. We need to parallel technological growth with an equivalent spurt in our ability to mature as a society and to live in harmony with one another.

In this arena, unfortunately, the world still seems to be reasonably predictable. The unfortunate part derives from the fact that, in the field of social interaction, as a species, we don’t seem to be able to learn from the past. It’s as if every generation starts from scratch and re-lives the same errors of the past. The geographic names and cast of characters may change, but human emotion remains erratic. However, now, with the technology that currently exists, any mistakes that are made can have much much greater consequence. The emotion that leads one person to throw something at another may be identical, regardless of what is being thrown, but the result will be very different if that is a rock versus a hand-grenade verses a nuclear bomb.

As we look at the next 50 years, the key question we have to ask is not what new technologies will emerge or how to accelerate the process. The real issue is will it be “more of the same,” or we will finally learn how to apply the wonderful tools we have developed in a socially responsible manner, to improve the lot of humanity and to solve the human problems that plague us? This will be the key factor that determines the nature of the environment in which Bailey lives. There is an even more cogent question here: what can we still do to leave a more positive legacy for future generations?

As I think of the world into which Bailey has come, remembering that she was neither part of its making nor did she have a choice in the decision, I have two hopes. The first is that we will start to learn from the past and realize that the world cannot be viewed as a zero-sum game where everything that benefits one party comes at the expense of another. We need to recognize that, in the long run, we can only achieve satisfaction by reconciling differences and finding ways to work together. The second is that Bailey and her contemporaries will not just be observers but will become active participants in shaping the future so that human and technological values converge and progress together.

There is a “catch 22” here. Children do not mature in a vacuum. Their knowledge, beliefs and action patterns are shaped in early years by their experiences, what they see, hear and learn from their parents, their siblings, their teachers their friends and, of course, the media. The key task we have is to make those inputs as supportive as we can. But we are the ones who have brought us to where we are. If we are going to leave Bailey and her friends a better world, each of us must make a difference and do it now. This would make a great “resolution” to start off the “true” new millenium.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With:

What price – memories

March 24, 2000 By Leave a Comment

What Price – Memories.
By Mel Copen March 24, 2000

My Mother has many of the characteristics of a “pack-rat” – instincts lovingly honed and cherished over decades – saving and savoring every letter, card and picture that she received. Boxes of memories stored on closet shelves – like rare spices, used only occasionally and in small quantities, but adding a wonderful zest to life. A few weeks ago, on the occasion of her 85th birthday, she gave my wife and me a packet containing letters and cards that I had sent her as a child and through early adulthood. I sadly noted that the number had decreased with each passing year.

As my wife went through the packet, she started reading aloud excerpts from what I had written so many years ago – a time period that had predated our marriage. There were comments on incidents in my life and in my Mother’s and many thoughts relating to the world as I saw it back then. Listening, as my wife read, brought back wonderful memories. Some of these I carry with me all the time, and they are as fresh in my mind as the day they occurred. Others, equally precious, had long been forgotten. My wife found the letters were both enjoyable and revealing – although I’m not sure “revealing of what.”

As she read, a thought came to mind. My grandchildren – will they ever have the pleasure of a similar experience? Moving from this modern technological era to 50 years in the future, will they remember the emails they sent and the events to which they relate? Will the delete key have eaten the “Blue Mountain” greeting card that they received over the Internet? One can tabulate birthdays and anniversaries, but what about the thoughts and ideas and events that came with them? Where will their recollections come from?

In a similar vein, I have been trying to straighten up the disorganized corner of our home that I call my “work area.” One shelf was overflowing with 5 ¼” floppy discs, most of which were only 5-10 years old. I thought about all the data stored on the millions and millions of discs like mine – personal letters, business correspondence, thoughts and ideas, books, poems, hopes and despairs. For all practical purposes, they are all gone – I no longer have a computer that has a drive that can read them. Does it make sense even to save them? The data are still there, but the content is no longer accessible to most of the people who created them. And with each passing day, as old machines disappear or die, the inaccessibility is increasing. Not so the cards and letters like those which my Mother lovingly saved.

Years ago, I decided to do something for “posterity.” At that time the thought of grandchildren wouldn’t have even crossed my mind, but it was really for them that I tape-recorded a series of interviews with my two daughters. The girls were between the ages of 3 and 7 when most of the recordings were made. We talked about their likes and dislikes, their successes and “failures” and their views of life. They sang songs and told stories. I remember being fascinated by their wisdom and insight as well as their humor and naïveté. As I was thinking about the issue of change, an unsettling thought hit me – the interviews, so lovingly conducted, and stored for years, were recorded on an old reel to reel machine. If I don’t get them transferred to another medium soon, all I will have for my grandchildren is many many feet of useless mylar tape. A task for the near future.

Technology has improved the way we live today in so many ways. The fact that life in the future will not be the same as life in the past is a given, and not particularly profound. But “progress” has also brought trade-offs, and not all of them are positive. We see mixed blessings in many situations. For example, the benefits to our communities that come from increased land development are often tempered by factors that reduce many of the simpler pleasures of life that existed before the resultant traffic, pollution and deforestation problems.

The way progress has changed the world as my grandchildren see it was driven home by another event, related also to the birthday celebration. In honor of the occasion, all my Mother’s children, grandchildren and great grandchildren converged on New York City to be with her for several functions held over two days. There was some “down time” between activities, and during one of these periods, we decided on a short family outing. The Hayden Planetarium has just reopened after a major renovation. We had heard that the new show is spectacular. It takes visitors on a simulated spaceship tour of the solar system and out into our galaxy and beyond. We decided to take all the grandchildren and great grandchildren to see it.

The show opens with a magnificent panorama of the night sky, as seen from earth. Gasps came from all the young members of our group, as well as from most of the young people in the audience. There were thousands and thousands of stars projected onto the ceiling. They were brilliant. The Milky Way was a clear white streak running from horizon to horizon. Most of the viewers in the audience had never seen such a sky – obviously no one in the throng had ever been in a space ship high above the earth.

Afterwards, as we talked about the experience, I thought about my own reaction to that projected image of the sky. For me, it brought back memories – as a child, lying on the grass at night and looking up at almost the same scene, with an occasional meteor flashing briefly across a part of the sky. No space ship. No telescope. Just lying there and looking up at the sky. But it was more than that. Even as a child one couldn’t help thinking about the vastness of the universe and all the many questions that still remain unanswered – how did we got here? How far away are those stars and how long did it take the light to reach us? Are we alone? What is truly out there? It gave a sense of perspective, on the human race, on the earth and the cosmos. It also generated a desire for answers to the questions, and stimulated thinking about “science” and “God.”

I couldn’t help thinking about what our children and grandchildren have lost. Progress has brought greater scientific knowledge about the universe, but it has also brought air and light pollution that make the universe a much more abstract concept. For many youngsters around the world, the ability to step outside at night and be excited by the sky no longer exists. The sky has lost its excitement – it’s just there.

I’m not sure what this all means. One cannot turn back time, nor would that be desirable if it could be achieved. But it does mean that those of us who are involved in changing and shaping the future have an obligation to see that what is displaced is replaced in some manner. That includes memories of the past, (both on a personal and on a societal basis) and finding ways to stimulate curiosity and questioning about the physical world that surrounds us. This may be one of the most important responsibilities that we have to the generations that follow.
——————–

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: , ,

Technological impact – for better or worse

January 29, 2000 By Leave a Comment

Technological Impact – For better or worse
By Mel Copen January 29, 2000

The impact of technology is a recurrent theme – both because it has such an enormous effect on our lives and because issues relating to technological change come up every day. There are many “pros” and some “cons,” but the most important lesson that we still have to learn is that [start ital.] technology must serve people. Too often, today, the equation seems to be reversed. [end ital.]

When I was a youngster it seemed that we were on the verge of a great era – driven by the promise of new technologies. World War II had ended, and mankind now had the power and the freedom to solve all of humanities problems, at least so it appeared to a naïve young mind. We possessed the capability to eradicate poverty, hunger, disease – and to build a utopian world with all the knowledge and conveniences that technology could bring. Breakthroughs had come in every important field: information was expanding geometrically and we had new medicines, communications media, industrial and agricultural chemicals and materials, rockets and power sources. Although many of these inventions were born out of the necessities of war, it was a time to think of all the wonders that could be accomplished in a new era of peace.

The good news was that we did cure polio; develop computers, cellular phones, satellite networks and internet; put men on the moon, build space stations and send probes out into the universe. Many of us clearly live longer, better, more comfortable lives. However, world tensions continued and we went through a bitter Cold War and continued human confrontations in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. Despite some progress, old social problems of poverty, ignorance, bigotry continued. “AIDS” was added to our vocabulary, juvenile violence and drug use increased, and the problems of urban sprawl, horrendous traffic, air pollution and continued deterioration of the ecology continued to plague us, and in many cases, worsen.

What has become clear is that technology, of itself, is not a solution. Somehow we need to better understand human needs and the interface between those needs and the capabilities that technology provides. There are many obstacles. Here I want to focus on only two – compatibility with human processes and stability.

Fifty or so years ago radio, the then dominant technology, was being replaced rapidly by television. Snowy black and white pictures, atmospheric disturbances, taped news shows and a handful of network-dominated channels characterized the early years. Several generations have now been raised on a mature form of TV where the world comes into living rooms in stereo, in color and in real time. The variety of programming is enormous and, except for occasional power failures, there is virtually no disruption. It’s hard for today’s young people to envision time in the BT era (before television). “But granddad, what did you look at while you were listening to the radio?”

The human mind is very pliant and creative when challenged to be so. It both shapes and is shaped by the things with which it comes in contact. The mental images conjured up while listening to a radio show were just as vivid, if not more so, than those which are prepackaged and delivered today on TV and require nothing more than turning one’s head in the right direction. Despite all the positive impacts, we may have lost something in transition, particularly related to exercising creativity in a very individualized manner.

Additionally, it took many years of focused effort to get TV to where it is today. That focus encompassed the manufacture and economics of TVs, VCRs and production and transmission equipment; the nature of programming; and the construction of networks. It followed a sequential linear path, with each new development building on a mature stage that preceded.

Today, attention to both these factors seems to have diminished. We build devices that no longer challenge and, to some extent, replace the human mind. And in the scramble to be “more competitive” we are moving on to new technological stages before we have stabilized those we have currently reached.

There was a time when going up to an airline counter to buy a ticket was a lengthy and frustrating experience. The agent had to hand-write all the information, pressing heavily to make sure the impressions appeared on the multiple-copy ticket forms. Today this has been automated. In fact, you can get on the Internet and book your own reservations without a ticket. Great, but what happens if the computers go down or if there is a problem while traveling on an E-ticket. Most of the time that doesn’t happen. But when it does, there is often no backup. In essence, the systems have been built “efficiently” to deal effectively with the normal situations. Progress – yes? But…

In the past, the pencil and then the typewriter recorded human thinking. Both are “sequential machines,” capable of recording the workings of the human mind, although in a slow and ponderous manner. In using them, the mind has to provide discipline. Today, the word processor and hyperlinks have changed all that. They are fast (faster than the mind can work), they make error correction simple, and they provide new and exciting graphic and transmission capabilities. But they eliminate the need to think in a linear and logical progression. Stream of consciousness will do – just build hyperlinks between the various thoughts and you can still end up with something that is comprehensive – but finding a roadmap through the logic may be near impossible. (I’m convinced that this is the way people who prepare computer instruction manuals think and write.) A parallel can be seen in the impact of the handheld calculator, which has now made it almost impossible for young people to figure out, on their own, where the decimal point goes.

The application of technology in the past seems to have been more compatible with the nature and pace of traditional human thought processes and practices. Today, we appear to be inventing and implementing technologies that force humans to comply with them. [start ital.] We must devote more attention to the interface and the implications of what some of our technologies mean to human thought and behavior.[end ital.]

Finally there is the issue of change. Before we have one system finalized, we move onto another. The desire to be first in the market leads to even the most substantial of firms putting out products that are less than stable. And before that stability can be achieved, we move on to something new. Reliability on the Internet is just one small illustration. On the positive side, it is no longer necessary to wait long periods to finally get a poor quality connection. Worldwide communication occurs instantaneously – when the system works. Even with its problems, email still is a lot faster and better than in times gone by. But when gremlins attack and you are unable to reach anyone, or if you do, anyone who cares or who can help you, the frustration level builds, and one begins to long for “the good old days.” Perhaps I am just spoiled and expect more from the technology than it is prepared to or can deliver – but I don’t think the problem lies with the technology per se.

My fervent hope, as this helter-skelter introduction of new technologies continues, as well it should, is that we will take the time to stop and think about the human interface. How can we lower the frustration factor and make the technology better serve its masters rather than create a master that forces us to comply with its rules? The important thing to remember is that technology does not have a life of its own. It is created by people for people. So why do the problems persist?
—————–

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: