An absence of books
26/12/11 07:51 Filed in: Lifestyle
If we do not record our thoughts on a medium that is somewhat permanent, then did we really think them?
If we do not record our knowledge in a way that allows others free and unrestrained access to it, how will they grow?
If our technology is such that we rely on other people to be the knowledge-keepers, how can we trust the veracity of that knowledge?
If we allow the knowledge to be concentrated in the hands of a few, how will that reflect the power balance in the world?
The Internet, although I love it dearly, is an ephemeral place. It is an instantaneous idea conduit. Currently, it acts as a store for some of man's knowledge, some of man's thoughts and a lot of stuff that would never have been worthy of your time a decade ago.
But the "stuff" we are storing is growing exponentially, and the "signal to noise" ratio is getting worse.
In the future, we may just drown in clips of some pop "star" who sang in their bedroom and was never heard from again, or umpteen "dancing dog" clips of pets long dead. Finding knowledge may just become the lifelong work of some who would otherwise be involved in creating the next step in that knowledge. And who pays for all this storage? In our society, it is the user/consumer who pays for everything, so if we come to our senses and stop playing the "amusing", stop surfing the "celebrity sites", don't give page clicks to advertising driven sites, then are those things going to still be stored? Should they still be stored? And if they are still stored, how will we afford to store the important things, if the revenue from the "noise" is not available to subsidise the important? And if we charge for the important, then does the knowledge once again become the "property" of the rich?
I don't have answers, and I guess no one has, but I think it is important that we start asking the questions.
I have a birthday coming up soon, so perhaps I will get a book or three then....
If we do not record our knowledge in a way that allows others free and unrestrained access to it, how will they grow?
If our technology is such that we rely on other people to be the knowledge-keepers, how can we trust the veracity of that knowledge?
If we allow the knowledge to be concentrated in the hands of a few, how will that reflect the power balance in the world?
The Internet, although I love it dearly, is an ephemeral place. It is an instantaneous idea conduit. Currently, it acts as a store for some of man's knowledge, some of man's thoughts and a lot of stuff that would never have been worthy of your time a decade ago.
But the "stuff" we are storing is growing exponentially, and the "signal to noise" ratio is getting worse.
In the future, we may just drown in clips of some pop "star" who sang in their bedroom and was never heard from again, or umpteen "dancing dog" clips of pets long dead. Finding knowledge may just become the lifelong work of some who would otherwise be involved in creating the next step in that knowledge. And who pays for all this storage? In our society, it is the user/consumer who pays for everything, so if we come to our senses and stop playing the "amusing", stop surfing the "celebrity sites", don't give page clicks to advertising driven sites, then are those things going to still be stored? Should they still be stored? And if they are still stored, how will we afford to store the important things, if the revenue from the "noise" is not available to subsidise the important? And if we charge for the important, then does the knowledge once again become the "property" of the rich?
I don't have answers, and I guess no one has, but I think it is important that we start asking the questions.
I have a birthday coming up soon, so perhaps I will get a book or three then....
blog comments powered by Disqus