To technologists, the future always looks better. Consider MIT's multibillion capital fund drive, launched in 1999. The campaign was necessary, according to President Charles Vest, to enable the Institute to "attack the next generation of problems." That makes apparent sense until one pauses to consider that a great many of the current generation of problems derive from prior generations of technological solutions. Vest's premise would seem to be self-serving, except that the high-tech priesthood hardly ever acknowledges its role in creating problems, from nuclear waste accumulations to clogging estuaries with toxic effluents, to holes in the ozone and other environmental depredations from resource extraction, manufacturing and agriculture. Rather, the toolmakers solemnly acknowledge these critical challenges, then apply for research grants to carry on. Critical self-reflection rarely results.
The private sector is every bit as driven to spin solutions, but for different motivations. Every day, beleaguered high-tech executives and start-up hopefuls flock to the information technology research firm where I recently worked to gain feedback on their newest innovations and strategies. The hundreds of analysts who work there ceaselessly track thousands of companies, and still can't keep up with technical and business developments in computer-related industries, even now, as high-tech fortunes generally decline.
The IT innovation curve will continue to skew upwards over the next few years, analysts predict, as mobile and other network technologies hit their stride. My ex-employer updates various reports annually, semi-annually and quarterly, but many of its customers would prefer continuous updating, like a stock ticker. Do we really want technologies to obsolesce faster than we can keep track of them or take thoughtful decisions about how to use them? Call me Old Economy if you will, but I don't think so.
Copyright © 2001 by Geoffrey Dutton. All rights reserved.