The Digital Age: A Flawed Disaster in the Making

The Digital Age has been reinventing the way that people in this world interact. In just 10 short years, people have moved on from using hulking machines that struggle to perform basic tasks. Research shows that the average American uses more than 30 different machines in a day. That number is projected to increase exponentially over the next 5 years. Eventually, the majority of tasks in the workplace will be given to machines. Knowing this, I can’t help but wonder how long until our current technology is so inefficient that we are forced to upgrade.

                In history, mankind made strides towards a much more automated future. In recent years, mankind has made leaps and bounds. As my professor stated early on this semester, there are plans to eliminate the use of paper for newspapers altogether. In a matter of years, the times will be distributed via data chip or direct download to tablets which subscribers can purchase. The paper is already available online, as well as on certain tablet/smart phone devices via apps. I understand that increasing accessibility is beneficial, but producing a tablet that will potentially end the paper as we know it may not be the best thing.

                I must revisit one of my previous articles: my review of the dark knight. The movie did a great job of reinventing the comic franchise, but the problem lies within the reinventing phase. The movie, as good as it was, had significant differences from the comics. Not only did it confuse some comic book fans by withholding some key ideas, but it also happened to alter how these characters are portrayed to the public. The original is always better, since any deviations from an original storyline are prone to error/plot-holes. In the case of evolution in media, the same can be said. As we move towards new innovative methods of communication, there will be flaws and issues. In order to overcome those flaws, more advanced forms of technology will be released. Those new forms of tech are almost guaranteed to have, if not eventually develop, flaws, and require replacement. This never-ending loop will prove to be a money sink in time.

                The technological advances in the world open new windows to much greater problems than flaws. Let’s consider the idea of a New York Times tablet which is commercially distributed to subscribers. The information is downloaded onto their tablets, where viewers can assumedly safely view it. However, in order for the Times to check if you are subscribed, there must be some identification on your tablet. There is virtually nothing but time separating your personal identification, as well as vital information, from hackers. As tech advances, so will man’s ability to manipulate it to their will, legally and illegally. It’s been done before, from using a simple virus on a single computer to bringing down a gaming industry’s servers (referring to Sony’s PS3 hacking incident). Regardless, it remains evident that it is much less plausible to hack into a physical paper then to hack into an electronic tablet.

With a book like this, hacking the media seems 

more like an inevitability than a possibility 

Computers aren’t as perfect as they may appear. This leads us to ask questions: what happens if the computer messes up one day, and doesn’t update? What if conflicting information is printed in the times unintentionally? If “spellcheck” accidentally changes one word in every instance to its opposite (“can” to “can’t” for example), the story could cause confusion. Chances are, in a more “advanced” world that relies on machines more, there would be a greater chance of mistakes occurring. Machines aren’t perfect; they can make mistakes just like us. If a mistake arose, it could potentially be more harmful than a human error though, as machines lack one thing that humans still have: judgment. Normally, a human would carefully examine the words and grammar after a computer had. If technology were to take over the business, we would be essentially leaving the task of media distribution entirely in the hands of our creations.

                If there is a problem in the world, scientists will work to solve that problem. Any technology that scientists and engineers create with the intention of solving a problem will actually serve to better mankind. If the problem at hand is faulty technology, the tech should be fixed; a newer model shouldn’t be released to solve the problem. Being an engineer, I’m not against the advancement of technology. However, I believe that the “revolutionizing” of the paper is something unnecessary and risky. Reading paper-based products has been a tradition for thousands of years now. The process of producing paper-based products has been brought to a near-perfect state. Revolutionizing the paper at this point would prove, inevitably, to be more trouble than it’s worth.