If you have not already noticed, I enjoy old things made to last. That's not to say that I am always in a position to purchase such things, but when I can, I do. With a science to technology to applied design cycle of years or decades, companies worked on a slower time scale when their business models did not rely on new purchases as they do today. Sadly, most consumer goods made now are designed to fall apart. Why? Our economy is based on the continual consumption of goods. To encourage continued consumption, most companies today strive for change, eschewing innovation or scientific discovery.
I have heard it said (I believe it was a Popular Science article) that there has not been any significant scientific discovery, especially in engineering, material, and physical sciences since 1960. Everything since has been technological in nature. As a librarian, the distinction between Science and Technology is dear to me, seeing that it seems to be the least understood today (especially by children) and possibly the most important distinction we have in modern society. In Dewey sciences are the 500's and technology 600's. In LC science is Q and technology T. In both instances they are at highest level divisions, or class level. This is done purposefully, for pure science is the discovery of the nature of the Universe and all that is within, while technology is the application of that which has been discovered for human needs and desires. Examples of Science: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, you get the idea, while technology from these same sciences would be Computing, Engineering, Drugs, and Mining. Both classifications purposely list technology after science, for technology naturally springs from science.
I was fortunate enough to know Dr. Charles Townes. He invented masers and lasers, stemming from his studies of subatomic particles, worked on the development of radar, from his works in radiation, the infrared spatial interferometer. He did a lot of science. Tons of it. He was a Nobel Prize winner. He also created technology from his science. Think of lasers, they are indispensable in today's world. What about radar? Modern navigation would not exist without it. Lots of this work was done in one of two very different places: Bell Labs, and UC Berkeley. The work on the radar happened at Bell Labs. If you are unfamiliar with it, it was the phone company's scientific wing, recently acquired by Nokia. This is the one I want to focus on, because even commercial laboratories today do not do what Bell Labs did, conduct primary research. Just some of the inventions that came from their primary research into the electromagnetic spectrum, materials, and math: long-distance tv transmission, unbreakable codes, six-sigma, the beginnings of radio astronomy and its equipment, photovoltaic cells, modern materials sampling procedure, information theory, resistors, semiconductors, frequency division multiplexing, and on and on... In fact, they have been a powerhouse of science, and primary technologies, technologies upon which other technologies are built. They are almost unique, and indeed, as the history moves closer to the present, one sees that creep towards improvements on technologies, rather than primary scientific discovery. What Bell Labs history does show us is that to have radical, society-changing technologies, there must be high levels of investment in pure scientific research, and that the cycles of science can be very long, years and decades at least. So how does the consumer economy destroy quality, and more importantly, innovation?
Companies in the past understood that science, and thus new technologies, were years apart. There were decades between the first commercial mono and stereo radio transmissions, as were there between the first black-and-white and color television (RCA and Western Electric labs!) transmissions. Just using the tv and radio as examples, radio now more than 100 years old and TV nearly 100 as a commercial product, the oldest versions of both of these would still work today in receiving their respective signals. Other than the transistor (in the late 40's) there has been no real fundamental change in the technology. The business model used to be to repair our household technology. We only purchased another when it was irreparable. That all changed when it was discovered that more money was to be made if purchasing cycle was artificially ramped up by reducing cost through worse quality, frequently changing standards to all but eliminate repairs, and masking innovation behind improving existing technology and ignoring innovation and primary research. We have essentially turned a functional item (think tool) into a fashion statement. In fact, the purchasing public has been so well trained, that we demand that every year, if not more frequently, that our devices change. It is a mania for change. We, as consumers, cannot be satisfied.
I want to up front state that tools cannot be beautiful, and well designed. To point, because many of these items were expensive and meant to be in the household for years, and through possibly many changes in fashion, they sought to be timeless, or at least, of a mode that would speak to a generation, rather than a year or two. Look at the fashion industry. Clothing designers were expected to put out one or two collections a year, sometimes larger houses would be seasonal. Fine houses of design, that had hit upon classics, sometimes hardly changed designs for years, especially in the accessories market, where one wants to have an identifiable Tiffany ring, Gucci handbag, or Rolex watch. Now we see clothing being released as quickly as a 24 collections per year and accessories once or twice a year, all with slight tweaks to just to feed this fashion madness. When this type of release cycle and fashion mentality is applied to technology, it forces companies to put the majority of their efforts into thinking up the next "Big Thing" that twist that will spur us to replace a perfectly serviceable, and sometimes better, device with a new one, simply to feed our animal.
We may be heading back in the right direction, but it is really still just improving the same old thing without scientific discovery, but possibly, some innovation. Elon Musk and Alphabet, Inc. are scratching at the scum of the window that peeks back to how technology companies were primarily scientific powerhouses that then adopted their discoveries into consumer goods. Maybe there is less to discover, but I don't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment