Doug_Thompson@watmath.waterloo.edu (12/14/87)
> > > We all are familiar with the concept of a Generation Gap, or > a Wealth Gap. But I think that a more ominous concept creeping up on > society > is the idea of a Knowledge Gap of which one could say the Technology Gap > is but a subset. > > I have these "visions" of mobs of people tearing down all that is > technological and progressive. All because of fear. Maybe these > visions > are unfounded, but it seems to me that our society, whether by choice or > ac- > cident, is producing such pressures to conform, such pressures to please > and > entertain the lowest common denominator, that we have in our hands a > Knowledge > Gap among our society which is becoming, in my opinion, dangerous. The burning of the library at Alexandria represented just such a popular reaction against knowledge, and the technology of writing. H.A. Innis (The Bias of Communication, U. of T Press, 1952) called this a "vernacular drift". That is, the common, vernacular culture and the educated culture were divided by a "gap". Of the Scholars, Innis writes "They were writing books that could only be understood by those who had read all the other books". Not identical to our problem today -- but it contains alarming parallels. A novel called "A Canticle to Liebowitz" (can't locate author's name at the moment) explores the same problem. (great book) When writing was first introduced to Greece (circa 400 B.C.) there were similar problems. Mostly the control of the technology and literacy was monopolized by the ruling classes and their agents. The masses got no education, the elites did. The Church, following the collapse of the Roman Empire, preserved a modicum of literacy, and it did much to underpin their monopolization of European culture for a millenium. The invention of the printing press put literacy into the hands of the people, and within a generation, had made possible a widespread rebellion against the power of the Church. At first computers were so expensive that only those already rich and or powerful could make use of them. This is rapidly changing. It is encouraging to see how readily high school students "take" to computers. In the past 15 years I've watched as university students shifted from an almost totally uncomputerized environment into one in which every student has a computer account, most all use word-processors, at least to write their essays, and on-campus e-mail is simply a fact of life. Within another ten years, high school students may well be making as much use of the machines as university students are now. From that I'd guess that within 15 years or so, the vast majority of school-leavers of all ages will be comfortable doing word-processing, probably logging on remote systems, and probably having some exposure to e-mail, spreadsheets, and at least the principles of data-bases. By itself this would suggest that the "anti-technology" sentiment might well be confined to those who have already left school without computer literacy. As such, it will be a declining force, not likely to achieve dominance. > > What is the solution? I don't know if the momentum can be stopped. > We all are so involved in immediate gratification, in the so-called > "throw- > away" lifestyle ingrained into our minds, in making money, that > sometimes > it becomes hard to step back and look around. > I would speculate that the rise in home computer ownership and the dramatic rise in computer literacy which will follow the universal introduction of some computer instruction in high schools will lead to a huge growth in such things as networks and on-line data-bases accessible by computer. The home computer will more and more become an instrument for locating and fetching information as well as for quick, cheap communication. As it does so, it becomes a new communciation medium, and will compete with existing mass media. Every time a new technology of communciation is introduced (writing, papyrus, parchment, the press, the fast press, radio transmission) profound social disturbances and re-alignments of monopolies occur. What those changes might look like is fascinating speculation. The press brought democratization first. Knowledge is power, and the press allowed more people to get access to knowledge. Then it brought the "lowest common denominator" phenomenon. That was primarily the result of the need by newspapers to reach the largest audience possible in order to attract advertsing revenue. We quickly reached "information overload" where the amount of material available vastly exceeded the reader's time to examine it. "Instant Gratification" is connected in some ways with the electronic media's capacity to distort the temporal reality of cause-effect relationships. On TV, the effect of the cause is instant. Information overload probably has its role to play too. Where you want to read ten times as much as you have time to read, attention is drawn to that which can be read "instantly". An advertisement has to grap a reader's attention in less than half a second or it will be passed by. If we see the development of widespread use of computers as an important means of communciation, we may see some changes. Newsgroups such as this need only appeal to a few hundred people in the whole world in order to be viable. The "lowest common denominator" function is altered. The very different economic conditions in which computerized media exist, relieve the dependence on commerical advertising, and change the nature of the content. Further, media such as this newsgroup are interactive and two-way. The audience is also the "editorial staff". Indeed, the medium is not suitable for large size audiences: witness what happens in very popular newsgroups. You get 100 msgs a day, 90 of which are "noise" and you stop reading the newsgroup. This would suggest the future includes a further "fracturing of the audience" into many small groups (with lots of overlap). These are all significant differences from the media environment of the present. In a hypothetical "Usenet in the year 2020" we might find a million newsgroups, and a total participation of as much as half the population of the world (more than today at any rate). It is reasonable to suppose that a majority of people in the West, at least, will find it possible to access any of these million newsgroups. The question that most interests me is this: given a tremendous selection of cheap "information" which ranges in quality across the spectrum, what will people tend to choose? Will they be attracted to newgroups whose participants are other like-minded people where they can participate in dialogue which is meaningful to them and pertinent to their interests, or will they tend to shun that for "mass public entertainment". For some people already, reading news has replaced the TV as a principle entertainment medium. Most of those with access to Usenet are already among the highly educated. With Fidonet, however, a huge portion of the participants in some busy newsgroups are high school students. I have been astounded in reading some of these groups which are dominated by 14-18 year olds, at the rather high level of discourse often achieved. The discussions *are* often childish, but then the authors are children. But they are not stupid children fawning over pop stars or mimicing TV heroes -- at least not for the most part. Rather you see young minds wrestling with major issues of the day, capital punishment, nuclear disarmament, morality and ethics, career decisions, etc. In other words they are addressing what can fairly be called those issues which are of greatest import to their historical situation. And I presume (with some anecdotal evidence) that these are fairly ordinary teenagers. They have put a modem on their 8-bit game computer and call up local BBS systems (among which networking and Usenet like news is rapidly spreading). That is, the participants of BBSs may not be a self-selecting elite of only the brightest and the best. Indeed some participants are decidedly *not* very bright. Nothing is conclusive from these observations, but there is a suggestion that the learning and decision-making processes of these kids are very different from those of their parents, in which mass-media impressions and peer-group pressure (involving numerically small, geographically specific groups) were wholly dominant in the adolescent phase of individuation from the family. For some, the "newsgroup" on the computer is an effective competitor and important alternative to the television. The question I'm not at all sure of, and may eventually be of surpassing importance, is this: For what proportion of the population will this be true? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ISIS: International Student Information Service 519-747-1332 2400/N/8/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!fido!221!162!Doug_Thompson Unit B-3-11 !watmath!orchid!imprint Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: dt@221.162.fido.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ISIS is a non-profit agency dedicated to international communication ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- * Origin: * ISIS INTERNATIONAL (221/162)
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/18/87)
In article <15907@watmath.waterloo.edu>, 221.162.fido!Doug_Thompson@watmath.waterloo.edu writes: > > A novel called "A Canticle to Liebowitz" (can't locate author's name at the > moment) explores the same problem. (great book) By Walter Miller. Currently in print in reasonably-sized bookstores under Science Fiction.