In spite of the fact that I make a living in the computer field, I’m usually slow to use new technology. I was one of the last to get a microwave. I still prefer my desktop computer to an iPad, and would rather use a map or follow my nose than use a GPS.
The big exception to my Luddite tendencies is technology that allows me to be more creative. That explains why I spent almost $5,000 for the first Apple LaserWriter in 1986, started building Filemaker applications when the current version was 2 (it’s now 11), and am fascinated with new end-user development tools.
According some analysts, by 2014 end-user developers may constitute 25% of users in large organizations. Maybe when this happens, people like me will be able to tap a robust support system to help us identify and evaluate new tools and integrate new applications. For what these services might look like, see “End-user developers: A critical corporate asset.”
As much as I love the creativity, speed, and control of end-user development tools, I’m increasingly uneasy about “black box” automation. In “When algorithms control the world,” Jane Wakefield of the BBC describes a transatlantic cable between Canada and the UK built primarily to serve the needs of algorithmic traders, who will be able to send shares from London to New York and back in 60 milliseconds. She quotes Kevin Slavin, an algorithm expert, who says:
“We are running through the United States with dynamite and rock saws so an algorithm can close the deal three microseconds faster, all for a communications system that no humans will ever see.”
In “The Next Economic Revolution,” Alex Planes of The Motley Fool, questions the conventional wisdom that neither education nor entrepreneurship can solve the unemployment in a consumption-based economy. He says:
“Accepting a world in which human labor is largely supplanted by technological solutions requires us to radically re-imagine the foundations of our economy, which is a step most are not prepared to take.”
The geeky side of me can’t wait for next breakthrough in end-user development tools while the Luddite side is cautious about technology that promotes unsustainable growth or creates market instability.
Related articles
- The Personal Computer Is Dead (technologyreview.com)
Jean-
Both unsustainability and instability would be examples of disruptions caused by the much lauded “disruptive technologies”, no? The trick is to identify then which disruptive technologies cause good disruptions vs those that cause bad disruptions. …Seems rather impossible to see that and well enough in advance. And then there’s the inevitable arguments over what’s good and what’s bad.
Posted by Eric Z | December 6, 2011, 1:39 pm