You are absotlutly correct it's in our blood ,we don't want things to change to fast and still we fame the cold emty Icons and museums that uses the picture make us forget, that we nomatter how modern and futuristic, build our houses the same way as 100 years ago --- maybe not by first view but by core the same way's with the same perception , then we look at what efficiency brought where innovation had a hard time, and se nothing but less quality poorer craftmanship, houses that last less than 20 years stuffed with low quality timber assembled with fittings being the only innovative gadged , filled uo with wood splitting nails and timbers that was better suited for paper production.

There are no real seven mile jump, no paragime shift in fact , you are better off with a house build as they did a hundred years ago -- please allow me to add this fact to the weakness of small-step progression .
But not only did the quality leave, the moral and the way you respect the crafts, the gab between good solid crafts and the jou being surrounded by honest building structure have been replaced by cheapest chip-wood sheets violant nailed to sad quality "factory made" stupid paneling "framework --- building elements made so bad that a craftsman just 50 years ago would feel shame ,not just becaurse the endwood nails but also ashame for the sad quality and "innovation" in house building at a level that describe 8 badly assembled pins as "advanced building technikes".
At the other end huge super expensive museums is fabulated and craftsmen do their most to make the same materials as 80 years ago tortured into wierd forms, an architecture that offer nothing outside the academic circles, an architecture that lost it's will to deliver there, where innovation and newthinking is most wanted, there where hundred of thousands of new houses are called for, there architecture with it's nose deeply infiltrated in social responsibility towerds the old garde show it's real value ; none.

Then what about develobing new and all those promises carried by the prospect of the computer -- well just there the real caurse show it's sad face , while as every new gadged was newer the the promised wonder , architecture have not just been brought to a standstill --- efficiency have not brougth new way's to put things together it have only refined the old way's with cheaper special fittings so the house can still be build as a lookalike of the quality of just 50 years ago, but look underneath the panels , the panels of both the new spetacular cold Icons and the panels of plain family houses what do you find ; something being made better by innovation and newthinking no, something made stronger and more longlived no, and yet , even we open our eyes and reconise the sad craftmanship the lack of visions and real newthinking in the spetacular museums then, try invent a new building method what response would you think it would get , try solve all the calls for manufactoring and new materials plus hands-on computer projecting , --- what response would you expect ?

See in that response you can read the real resons.

as a counterpoint I would like to remind you that 10 years ago I didn't have an email address and archinect disn't exist. two years ago I didn't know what a blackberry was, and not i'm getting professional help to get me off crackberry.

Technology in our era isn't heroic, it's serreptitious.

80 yrs ago we didn't have tvs.

40 yrs ago we were warned not to sit too close when looking at the tv because we'd damage our eyesight.

now most of our work requires that we stare at a tv that is about 18" away from our eyes.

actually if you ever saw the pbs series "1900 House" you would see that life has changed quite a bit.

we communicate more over longer distances from more places then ever before. we go more places, use more energy, buy more stuff, earn more $$$ and live longer.

is this a revolution or evolution (and don't ask a priest this question)?

oh we can kill even more people by pushing a button.

fun with electricity...

we're also trying to blur the human skin with our cyborg devices...

something to consider in our forward-leaning (yet oddly revisionist) times is the reality that some technologies just work and are in some ways timeless.

not to say that one shouldn't be looking for ways to replace the internal combustion engine or central heating (quite the opposite), but i find great pleasure in a good old-fashioned shave, a soft cotton t-shirt, and a good guinness at the local pub.

some things don't need "improving"

To take one point - More communication maybe good although is does depend on the conversation subject. If this is at the expense of human contact then I don’t think this is good thing. It’s more about getting things done rather than on the quality of the environment we form around ourselves with the people we converse with.

You only have to look at the burgeoning personal adds on any local press to see that technology has not necessarily increased your chances of finding a soul mate – geeks for whom the dislocation of cyber sex are exempt. (each to their own sad ways).

Most new technology is just re-packaged to be sold as the new / latest must have. So much more could be achieved with a paradigm shift where the technologies available radically change the way we live (for the better) for the masses.

The disparity between the technology dream and the reality has been realised in the use of CAD technologies. Good for the computer savvy designer, a basic preoccupation for the rest who struggle with it on a daily basis. Just an excuse to generate more information to be read, disseminated, forwarded, archived. My job has become not the artisan, poet, engineer but the IT helpdesk, e-clerical, and information manager. I barely have time to log on to Archinect let alone form some witty abuse to issue to some ignoramus posting like in the good old days.

I like the argument of Don Norman's book 'The Invisible Computer' that technology has to be so easy to use we don't even notice it: "The technology should never be the focus; it should always be the doing that's the focus."

great points BOTS. the motivation behind gadget technology is to move units off of store shelves under the guise of being able to improve one's quality of life. who can actually say that their cellphone or crackberry has REALLY given them more time to do other things (or nothing at all, which is sometimes more valuable)? we just find other ways to fill these interstitial moments of time with more mindless shit.

seems that finding and improving the areas where life could really be changed by technology for the better on a grand scale are more evasive (and probably more expensive).

As I sit with my lap top reading the news, drafting and uploading my music collection I can't help but think we are at a cultural crossroads.

The hard copy is disapearing rapidly.... that's pretty significant.

*maybe not cultural but technological...

silverlake - electronic paper is coming - sometime

I knew this would come in handy when I saved it! I copied the body of one of those e-mail forwards I get from friends and family. not going to edit, sorry.

Show this to
>your children and grandchildren
>
>THE YEAR 1906
>
>
>This will boggle your mind, I know it did mine!
>The year is 1906.
>
>One hundred years ago.
>What a difference a century makes!
>Here are some of the U.S. statistics for the Year 1906 :
>
>************************************
>
>
>The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.
>
>
>Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.
>
>
>Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
>
>
>A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
>
>cost eleven dollars.
>
>
>There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles of paved roads.
>
>
>The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
>
>
>Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily
>populated than California.
>
>
>With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st most
>populous state in the Union.
>
>
>The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!
>
>
>The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.
>
>
>The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year .
>
>
>A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist
>$2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and
>a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.?
>
>
>More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at HOME.
>
>
>Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
>
>Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were
>condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."
>
>
>Sugar cost four cents a pound.
>
>
>Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.
>
>
>Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.
>
>
>Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
>
>borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
>
>
>Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
>
>entering into their country for any reason.
>
>
>Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
>
>1. Pneumonia and influenza
>2. Tuberculosis
>3. Diarrhea
>4. Heart disease
>
>5. Stroke
>
>
>The American flag had 45 stars.
>Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
>
>Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.
>
>
>The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30!!!!
>
>
>Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
>
>hadn't been invented yet.
>
>
>There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.
>
>
>Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write.
>
>Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
>
>
>Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over
>
>the counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists said,
>"Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates
>the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health."
>
>(Shocking? DUH! )
>
>
>Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least
>
>one full-time servant or domestic help.
>
>
>There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A. !
>
>
>Now I forwarded this from someone else without typing
>
>it myself, and sent it to you and others all over the United State s,
>
>possibly the world, in a matter of seconds!
>
>
>Try to imagine what it may be like in another 100 years.
>
>
>IT STAGGERS THE MIND, EH....!

I like this part: "Herion... gives buoyancy to the mind..."

Is THAT what THAT is? BUOYANCY?

Technology has grown by leaps and bounds...when I hit puberty fifteen years ago, they were just coming out with the Gillette Sensor (two blades). In college, I switched to the Mach 3 (three blades). Then the Schick Quattro (four blades). Now I'm using the Fusion (five blades). And for thousands of years, people were limited to only ONE blade. By the time I die, I'm anticipating somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 blades.

Isn't progress great?

It may have been Camelot for Jack and Jacqueline
But on the Che Guevara highway filling up with gasoline
Fidel Castro's brother spies a rich lady who's crying
Over luxury's disappointment
So he walks over and he's trying
To sympathise with her but he thinks that he should warn her
That the Third World is just around the corner

In the Soviet Union a scientist is blinded
By the resumption of nuclear testing and he is reminded
That Dr Robert Oppenheimer's optimism fell
At the first hurdle

In the Cheese Pavilion and the only noise I hear
Is the sound of someone stacking chairs
And mopping up spilt beer
And someone asking questions and basking in the light
Of the fifteen fame filled minutes of the fanzine writer

Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forwards

Jumble sales are organised and pamphlets have been posted
Even after closing time there's still parties to be hosted
You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you're waiting for the Great Leap Forwards

One leap forward, two leaps back
Will politics get me the sack?

here comes the future and you can't run from it
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it

It's a mighty long way down rock 'n roll
From Top of the Pops to drawing the dole

If no one out there understands
Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman

In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune
But this is reality so give me some room

So join the struggle while you may
The Revolution is just a T-shirt away
Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards

Strawberry - I'm sceptical about the cost of things 100 years ago as everything inflates, including salaries.

The razon analogy is great. I'm still stuck in 1990 with my retro Gillette Sensor (2 blades). Still a great shave!

j-turn:

"Technology in our era isn't heroic, it's serreptitious." seems like a bold phrase but what does it mean, that key word 'serreptitious'?
The closest my dictionary gets is 'surreptitious' - done in secret or by improper means, and 'serendipitous' - the talent for chancing on fortunate discoveries. So, is 'serreptitious' merely a malapropism or something I oughtta know about?

And yeah, call me a pedant but it's the end of the day and I'm bored with window schedules but still in that state of mind, if you know what I mean ;-)

Academic research has been completely transformed over the past hundred years. A hundred years ago, research required long, slow travel to an information centre: probably a European city. There a researcher would have had to sort through endless card files, manually, making a handlist of relevant references. A paper or a book would have to be written by hand, and then copied out by a typist. If you decided that a paragraph belonged a few pages back? You would need to re-type the document.

Now, I have access to staggeringly huge databases from where I sit. I can access the catalogues of nearly any library in the world. I can access digital facsimiles of precious documents that would previously have been held in restricted collections. I can sort and search databases and texts, finding, for example, every occurence of 'auctoritas' in Vitruvius in moments, and then cross-reference that with every occurence of auctoritas in other Roman authors of the period. And I can write in a completely non-linear way, writing, copying and pasting to my heart's content.

and let us not forget the impact of watson and crick, and all that has passed since them. bio-tech was not even a glimmer of a twinkle of a mote in someone's eye a hundert years ago...

hell banting hadn't invented a process for extracting insulin a hundred years ago...and NOW we make our own (thank you ginentech), basically from scratch...

this is like that "science is dead" book that came out awhile back. somehow i don't think so. it sort of depends on where you are looking don't it...

Solidred - let me flesh out that statement a bit. Yes it was a little vague, and please understand that these are loose thoughts strung together. It might not make sense.

I would typify modernist technological advances as heroic. Let's loosly bracket modernist technology as everything between iron construction and the launch of the space shuttle. One could say that all these technologies focussed on increasing scales of acheivement, they were highly visible, and executed in service of a sponsor (government, corporations) that was just as visible and whose ideology were explicitly stated. Expressions of technology were expressions of ideology.

Somewhere in the mid 20c, the technological drive shifted from being infrastructural and macroscopic to being communicative and biological and for the most part micro and micro micro scopic. technology ceased to be visible and spectactular. It couldn't be seen, it produced effects that were senced. At the same time communities of science and engineering became so advanced, complex and specialized that they lost the capacity to directly communicate to the public at large. At that point, they lost their explicit ideological link. So I see technology in this situation as lacking in accountability to the public - other than the few cases when it is subject to market demands. Since we can't know for sure what ends technologies are serving, then I think we must be mistrustful, and that's why i say "serreptitious".

the motivations of scientists and tinkerers are often, if not always, murky...

even newton, the paragon of reason, was a closet alchemist (and a strange one, at that), who kept his experiments secret because of fear of excommunication or worse...and yet they apparently informed his ideas on optics, which changed the world...we only learned of his closet hereticism years later.

i think you are reading an ideology into technology that only can be seen retroactively, j-turn.

Jump - sometimes yes, but often no. Think of the technological spactacles of the 19th century world fairs, the infrastructural heroism of the new deal, sputnik and the kennedy space drive, the propoganda campaings surrounding the industrialization of agriculture in stalinist ussr . . .