Hi-Tech versus Low-Tech: Putting It Together

I was strolling through the old town of a small European city recently with a colleague. Looking for a particular restaurant, we were armed with a paper tourist map as well as a smart phone with a mapping app. The streets and back lanes were characteristically narrow and running in myriad directions. I found myself following my smart phone with an extended hand, like a person being pulled along blindly by a blood hound on a leash; or maybe, a 21st century divining rod. Alas, I couldn’t resist to comment…I felt like a modern idiot, and dismayed that we couldn’t orient ourselves with the paper map. Are we becoming dumber with the advent of new technologies? Or do traditional skills and thinking matter at all anymore if we have the world of deep data at our fingertips? And thus began the debate…

I leapt vehemently to the defense of tradition, deep understanding, simplicity and skills such as estimating. Think, sums in the head instead of calculators; the subtleties of human interaction instead of Siri; analog music recording instead of DDD (who would discredit Lenny Kravitz?).

I don’t think anyone would argue that blocking progress to perpetuate Luddite methods is up for consideration. There is no doubt that modernizing processes, tools and such is a natural and necessary path forward. The innovations we have seen in virtually all fields over the last few decades has been stunning, and seem to be accelerating exponentially.

In fact, perhaps it’s all a little overwhelming—elementary schooling must now face the challenge of avoiding the trap of trying to teach ‘everything’, since the pool of knowledge, history and so on is becoming untenable. How many people really need to know low-level programming, for example, with the advent of friendly modular programming interfaces? Do pilots really need to know every systems element, or the logic of every black-box component of their aircraft (akin to Scotty’s knowledge of the Enterprise)?

Instead, the focus needs to be on critical thinking skills, inductive reasoning and other fortés of the human mind. There is a real risk that in today’s world we are presented with so much information, electronic distraction and stimuli, that our thinking has become very shallow in scope. We have instant answers, without gauging ‘reasonableness’—and trust blindly in what we are given. (‘Fake news’ might fall under this category.)

Case-in-point: Consider a structural engineer working on an aircraft design. In days-gone-by, a stress analysis of a given component would be accomplished using well-established analytic methods involving simplified models and basic principles. An answer would be found in the form of a mathematical expression, after which figures would be applied to determine whether the component could withstand the prescribed loads, or in fact if the component was ‘over-designed’ (too heavy). The engineer would have a feel for how the component was performing. Using finite-element analysis, however, and with the amazing computational power available, the component can be modeled and then loads and features varied to determine very accurate properties relatively quickly.

So, if a Stress engineer were asked whether the component would withstand with a 30% increase in loading, the seasoned engineer might be able to give a reasonable answer with minimal extra thought, understanding intuitively how the component behaves. A junior engineer, on the other hand, might respond by saying “I’ll run the job and get back to you.”

Computer programs can now in fact optimize structures through iterative techniques, and ultimately improve the overall design. Artificial Intelligence is making similar strides forward. So nobody could legitimately advocate reverting back to old-school techniques. But somehow, it seems we might be losing touch with real understanding. Or perhaps, this is just sentimental blather?

Mechanical time pieces are still coveted items. Why bother with the complications of gears and springs when solid-state solutions are lighter and more accurate? Is it the craftsmanship? Tradition? Modern methods may be ‘better’ in most respects, but not necessarily more appealing. Some dying arts may become esoteric curiosities in due course. The science, art and tradecraft behind Murano glass for example, can never be truly replicated by scaled factories or 3-D printing. The few remaining masters, though, will always hold us in awe if we take the time to notice.

Blue water sailing, even single-handed, still has an allure. Add in celestial navigation instead of GPS and you have an adventure. The methods of antiquity are not useful for commercial ventures, this is certain. But I would like to think that mankind will always be nostalgic to some extent, and to appreciate the true challenges that our ancestors were faced with. There is no doubt, we have largely gone ‘soft’ by comparison to early explorers, for example. This is partly why some people volunteer to subject themselves to intense physical challenges: ironman triathlon, mountaineering, outdoor survival with minimal kit.

But there’s another possibility. Reverting back to basics occasionally can serve as an escape from the noise; to enjoy simple intellectual pleasures and to focus on formative and relevant experiences, rather than more ‘stuff’, or ‘faster’ and ‘more’. In that way we get to know ourselves and we can actually nurture our creative and social skills.

We’ll have to learn how to leverage technology optimally. Certain economic statistics are showing slowing or declining productivity growth. How is that conceivable? I would posit that humanity needs to learn how to filter for things that are relevant and useful to the task at hand—uploading photos of our lunch to Facebook is not a particularly constructive endeavour; nor is binge-watching Netflix (guilty). We may be at risk of sinking into an abyss of collective attention-deficit disorder, running quickly but not actually accomplishing much in the way of original thought or creativity that drives productivity improvements. The end game is that humans will need to add value to automated systems.

So, a face-to-face debate over candle-light, instead of WhatsApp messaging. A good book instead of television or YouTube. A traditional shave with a straight blade instead of a 7-blade safety cartridge. Slow cooking instead of nuked meals. A bicycle ride instead of gridlock in traffic. A hand-written letter (in cursive script, no less) instead of an e-mail. Touching base with nature and living the moments.

Modernity is inevitable But the pleasures of ‘old school’, the joy of slowing down, and the value of tradition and experience are just as salient as super-tech and ‘instant-everything’. At the end of the day, we are humans—our environment, and tool-kits are changing much faster than our slow-paced physiological and intellectual evolution. These are hugely exciting times for technology, but maintaining perspective and cultivating wisdom is still sacrosanct.