Technology: Adapt or die.

[Lex]

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” - Charles Darwin

Do you think this holds true for constantly changing technology?

Are you an early adopter of tech stuff, or the guy who still has a VCR that blinks 12:00?

Does it energize you to see innovations in internet communications, or make you upset?

It's fascinating to see how people react so differently to the same technology.

[JuniperLea]

1. "It's fascinating to see how people react so differently to the same technology"

Instead of technology, you could have said...

Wine

Drug

Cartoon

Book

Movie

Song


And no one is right or wrong for disliking or liking one or more or non or all.

What I find fascinating is how a bunch of people cannot tolerate the fact that some people don't like the same thing(s) they do.

[Lex]

3. Well, yeah, I could have said a lot of things.

But I was specifically asking about technology and internet innovations.

And I didn't say anyone was "right or wrong" either. Some people are early adopters and some are not. That's a fact.

I certainly tolerate that people don't like the same things I do. Jump to conclusions much?

[JuniperLea]

9. And I am specifically saying...

That it is all subjective. Miss the point much?

[Lex]

12. Well of course it is subjective.

That's why I was asking what people thoughts and experiences were. You know, to read some opinions--which are subjective.

[dkofos]

25. AIHF

[Duer 157099]

2. I'm not an early adopter, but not a Luddite

There's an actual reason that I wait before adopting certain technologies -- because of how quickly they turnaround, become obsolete, or simply fail of their own poor design.

I have a limited amount of energy to apply towards learning new technologies, so I like to be somewhat sure the investment is going to be worth it (or necessary).

Note: I haven't used Facebook OR Twitter ever. And still running WinXP. Ran Win98 until just about 2 years ago. No dual cores here - no need.

ETA: but I really enjoy reading about developments in technology, the real cutting edge stuff

[Lex]

6. I do think it makes sense to take a "wait and see" attitude, esp. if expense

is involved--sometimes time expense, and sometime actual dollars. Plus some things start off kind of clunky and evolve over time, usually being much more user friendly after more time and tinkering.

[Duer 157099]

24. The more I think about it, the actual reason is

because I'm usually disappointed in the early versions of a technology. Like, I can see the promise in how it *could* be, and what it *should* do -- but invariably it takes years for those things to actually be implemented.

I find I don't miss much, if anything, by waiting.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. I've generally been an early adopter and my job centers on helping others adopt.

And every once in a while I run into a new technology that's getting a lot of buzz but is still useless.

[Lex]

8. I find that to be true as well. Usually after a while it just dies

from lack of use or interest. Or something better comes along that blows it out of the water in terms of usefulness. Like Google did for search engines, for example.

[ananda]

5. I'm sort of halfway between..

.. being a Luddie and modern tech savvy.

So far so good.

I had a hard time moving to using a
computer and a hard time learning it.
I started with a Mac Classic and stayed
with Macs for a long time. When my
school switched to pc's, I learned
Windows. Now I can do both.. and I
can watch online videos.

I never got my act together to build
a proper website, and I don't use a
blackberry or text message, only because
I'm too cheap.

I can use a digital and cellphone camera,
and I can Photoshop pics and store them
and send them by email.

As for tv, I have a standard vcr/dvd
combo, two tv's with DVR's, and one
tv with an all-region dvd player so I
can watch shows from overseas.

I haven't learned to download videos
by way of bit torrent, and I never got
my act together well enough to use
piracy sites.

I got Geedsquad to set up my pc laptop
to operate wirelessly in my house through
a router attached to my Mac G4, and it
prints wirelessly too .. which is very
cool.

Life is good.

[Lex]

10. You are ahead of me.

I haven't ever had a Mac, since from the beginning, school and workplace had PCs. I do pretty well on my digital camera, but I wish I knew how to photoshop better---there are some funny photoshoppers here at DU.

I love my Blackberry--it was very user friendly from the start.

[Warpy]

23. Macs were always too expensive for me

so I've had a series of refurbished or used PCs that I taught myself how to fix when something crumped out. I don't have a cell phone or PDA because I'd never use either one of them. I did set up my own wireless router, though, and have my backup box and a laptop connected wirelessly.

I don't have the cell phone but I do have a spinning wheel and two hand looms.

Go figure.

[bemildred]

7. I think the most intelligent technology survives.

I tend to be a late adopter, hi-tech has a very high bullshit level, and early stuff always costs a bundle, is buggy, and is obsolete in a year or so; then there is the stuff that just dies outright or limps along for a decade.

[Lex]

14. I agree

about the high bullshit level, plus some stuff I never wanted anything to do with--like "pagers" back in the day. Do people still use those?

[Initech]

11. Depends if it serves a purpose or not.

Something like the iPhone with its thousands of apps does serve a purpose. I'm for it.

Something like Twitter or something that makes your cell phone make farting noises, I'm against it.

[Lex]

16. does Twitter make your cell phone make farting noises?

that can't be good

[gkhouston]

27. I don't know -- it might liven up Monday morning meetings.

:hangover:

[Initech]

32. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaart!!!

[NeedleCast]

30. Why Do you think an Iphone app serves a purpose but Twitter doesn't?

[Initech]

34. I don't think Twitter serves a purpose.

It takes the concept of text messaging and dumbs it down further. I mean really - do we really need to hear about people's every day lives?

Whereas if you look at the Apple app store there's thousands of different things you can do with them.

[Arugula Latte]

13. This reminds me of when Xtian zealots came to my door.

One of their messages was that evolution couldn't be true because "look at the state of humanity. It's not evolving towards perfection."

I said: "That's not what evolution is about. It's about genetic changes that help the survival and reproduction of life forms in the particular environmental conditions of a given time frame." They just stood their blinking like deer in headlights.

[Duke Newcombe]

18. Wow. Pull a hammy stretching? n/t

[Lex]

20. You're right

I don't think they understood the concept of evolution. My quote was really just an analogy.

[JackRiddler]

15. Technological change has no relation to mechanisms of biological evolution

Except that the present technological civilization has turned the world into a hostile environment killing off most animal and plant species -- regardless of whether they were previously "fit."

Your post is premised on the faulty if common idea that there is one "technology" that develops, when in fact investment decisions and other knowable human factors (like war and profit) favor the development of particular technologies in given directions, while hindering other technologies. Otherwise we'd have a high-tech high-speed low-price rail network, light surface rail networks covering all cities, and cheap giant airship cruisers making two-night hops to Europe, not to mention massive pedestrian zones and covered bike lanes... instead of the obsolete and ecologically destructive highway and airport systems.

And what do you mean by innovations in Internet communications? The rise of streaming video (slightly) energized me, twitter doesn't upset me but confirms my prejudices about how stupid some people are, and the only thing that will upset me is when they figure out an airtight system for controlling content that fucks everyone so as to pander to the greed and paraonoia of Disney/RIAA/MPAA.

[Lex]

17. it was an analogy

but thanks for your answer

[JackRiddler]

19. And so?

[dkofos]

21. It's fascinating to see how people react so differently to the same sentence.

[Lex]

22. It is!

I was just thinking that myself.

[damntexdem]

26. What we need is to develop technology that doesn't make us adapt or die.

;-)

[Fendius]

28. Technology to me is mans greatest achievment, and we always change

and become accustomed to it, though we have waaaayyyy toooo many people who chose to ignore it as science and stuff... It is important for us to adapt to any technology and learn from it to better ourselves, responsibly of course,)

[NeedleCast]

29. Is Interested Bystander an option?

I love new technology an innovation but I don't find a need for all of it. I guess it's a matter of what I find useful and what I don't, although I like to try and keep track of what's going on, I don't neccisarrily adopt it all. I like to read technlogy magazines and internet sites but I don't usually feel compelled to run out and by the latest, greatest of every gizmo that hits the market.

My VCR doesn't blink anything. It went to a landfill a long time ago. Go-go Bluray!

[Spike89]

31. It's a bit of a mixed bag really

I get your metaphor, but really the issue in technology isn't so much early adopter vs. left behind. I spent years in IT, then decades in covering it as a writer/editor. At one point in my career, I was a fanatic about staying ahead of the curve. However, that isn't the place with the highest "survival" rate. Not only are you prone to exhausting your bank account, but you can go down some real dead end paths. It's much more important to learn the concepts than it is to learn the individual apps or piece of hardware. Conceptually, there isn't a thing about the social networking/blogging world that isn't a variation of old-fashioned e-mail/message boards--things I was heavily involved with in the early 80s. Facebook, Twitter, etc. do some pretty slick tricks with the basic concepts, but for all our talk about rapid change, things don't truly change that fast. Certainly, anyone interested in staying up to date on the concepts should have no trouble...now, learning a new communications application every week will drive a person mad.

[NashVegas]

33. I Was All Set to Adapt Until I Realized It's Nothing More Than a Habitrail Wheel

Don't forget the adage: change for the sake of change isn't progress.

The biggest problem with technology at this time, IMO, is that it's being driven by people who don't have to work for a living, and/or driven by people who don't work for a living in the field they are pushing technology onto. They have no idea what they're helping along or who they're collaborating with. Or they do, and as long as they've got their $120k a year, who cares?

The technology industry has brought my industry to its knees, first by enabling tasks to be automated, thus removing decision making and innovation at the bottom of the ladder. As a result, the competitive pool of talent that could go on to be competent managers shrunk by 98%, while good schmoozers take all. Hey look! There goes another bankruptcy restructuring.

It's the same story across the board, in industry after industry where technology has replaced individual decision-making at the lower levels. We aren't adapting, we're toppling over. Some individuals can adapt, if they can manage to get wealthy enough to sit it out. The rest of us are pretty much fucked.

The only comfort I have is in knowing that when the so-called elite class gets to the point where they think they won't need computer programmers anymore, they'll be done, too.

ps - if I'm a Luddite, I'm a Luddite that can put together a Cold Fusion/MySQL site capable of generating 15k page views per month with multiple back-end users and multi-level security.

[1]

35. i'm keeping my eye on this cell-phone technology...

if it looks like it going to take off then i will buy in.

i'm not going to get burned again like on that cb radio deal...

[Karenina]

36. We're upgrading ourselves to death.

[fishwax]

37. I like to keep up

but time constraints and financial constraints mean that I have to pick and choose what technologies I dabble in. I haven't used twitter yet, for example--not because I'm against it for some odd reason, but because I don't have time at this point (mid-semester) to invest a lot of time in it. When the semester is over, I'll probably play around with it. I'm an early adopter with some things and an interested bystander with most.

[blindpig]

38. Technology is greatly over rated.

It's not about what we need, it's about what they can sell. Have all of these gadgets which we 'must have' improved the quality of life? Don't think so, they just add layers of complexity. And convenience of course, just the thing for a people conditioned for instant gratification, which is also very important for sales.


Yeah, I'm on a computer, it has it's uses, but I'll not go out and buy a new one until mine is utterly broken. And my vcr is still flashing.

[NashVegas]

39. Great Line

"It's not about what we need, it's about what they can sell."

[ElboRuum]

40. Answers...

"Do you think this holds true for constantly changing technology?"

Yes and no. First, the no. One need only look at the concept of "planned obsolescence" to see that constantly changing technology is purely an artificial process, driven by profitmaking, not by the "fitness" of any particular technology. The evolution of the cellphone is a prime example. It isn't that newer phones are inherently more "useful", its that the "fitness function" is one, not of usefulness, but rather of contributions to the manufacturers' profit stream. There are a goodly number of Windows users who insist upon using XP because it is plenty "fit" for their needs, however, its planned obsolescence in favor of Vista means that its "fitness" is NOT a function on the usefulness of the technology, rather the continuation of the Windows OS profit stream.

Now, the yes. As far as "adaptability" goes, there is something to be said for products which cannot survive in their niches. The VHS vs. Betamax VCR formats are a good example. It is generally argued that the clarity of picture and of stop-motion effects of Betamax VCRs were much better than those of VHS. It raises the question as to why VHS survived and prospered and Betamax fell into obsolescence. The answer is that the niche rejected the Betamax shortcomings. Specifically, at their highest clarity level, Betamax VCR tapes had a maximum run time of 1 hour. Movies generally run about 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 hours. So the niche's fitness function includes "the ability to watch movies at home at the highest fidelity level possible on the device", which turned out to be more important to consumers than another portion of the fitness function, "the best picture possible".

"Are you an early adopter of tech stuff, or the guy who still has a VCR that blinks 12:00?"

Neither. I read (and understand) the manuals on the rare occasion I can't figure out how to set the front panel of the device to not be so annoying.

I prefer to let the gadgetheads buy every little toy that electronics/technology manufacturers choose to make, watch it consume their lives in irrelevancy, then smirk at them with the wisdom I've accrued over the years (Never an early adopter be) as they struggle with patch after patch trying to keep whatever overwrought, unnecessary "features" it's been imbued with functional. I prefer to have a need first, then fill it with whatever is the most effective technology suitable to that need, and never adopt early, allowing the product in question to mature so that it becomes a low maintenance item. I abhor the idea of acquiring technology and then looking desperately to find a "need" just so I can justify the purchase, all the while suffering its invariably quirky "first effort" problems.

"Does it energize you to see innovations in internet communications, or make you upset?"

I'll answer your question with a question. Are human beings better served by face-to-face communications, being that this is their natural state, or do we somehow find value in adapting to remote and/or deferred communication mechanisms that take the "real-time" out of human life, replacing it instead with text-message abbreviations, emoticons, and the ability to unilaterally isolate ourselves when we decide it's proper?

Meh, maybe I'll just answer your question as well. I think human beings already say way too much, way too often, and use ideas lacking in substance for most of what they say. So technology which aggrandizes the "allow me to give you my unsolicited, vacuous, ill-conceived opinion on this thing you couldn't care less about" mindset is hardly something I find "energizing". The internet has value, this I will say, but like all tools, it has a few appropriate applications, and about a bajillion inappropriate ones. The internet has evolved into what might be analogous to using a hammer to fix a television set. It might work, but I think most of us would say that the hammer is an inappropriate tool for the fixing of televisions.

[Mike 03]

41. I was an early adopter for years, but nowadays I agree more with the

Russel Crowe character in "Body of Lies," and his lecture on the way that technology makes you transparent and vulnerable to loss of identity.

You actually have the edge if you can manage to live without the technology.

And this is just like Sun Tzu said: If you are invisible, you have much more flexibility and power than if you are "on the grid," so to speak.

Give me anonymity over dependence on technology any day.

The one exception is research. I've found the internet priceless when it comes to research.

Besides, it doesn't really save us time. It doesn't save me time. It wastes my time. I had a Blackberry, and texting wasted hours... Tossed it. The Newton? Loved the concept of the Newton, but in practice it sucked.

[anonymous171]

42. I am all for technology unless it starts hurting people. Then I go full luddite.

[Mike 03]

43. More than "Adapt or Die," I believe in "Evolve or Die." NT