【clover】ECO Debate 01 by CC

chaliaUID: 2589767

ebruary 26th 2008 - March 7th 2008  


Information overload


This house believes that if the promise of technology is to simplify our lives, it is failing.


http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/125

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


About this debate

Backgroud reading

Openning statements

Guest

Rebuttal statements

Guest  A & B

Closing statements

Guest

Winner announcement


------------------------------------------------------------

鉴于掉色严重...我编辑完之后打包上传附件把... ORZ...

chaliaUID: 2589767

About this debate


Technology users are discovering that the proliferation n.激增of information tools, services, and channels makes managing their own personal and professional information increasingly difficult. A growing chorus of voices is sounding the alarm that information overload is diminishing people’s ability be effective. Are there better ways to manage the vast amounts of information assaulting v. 攻击;袭击; users on a daily basis? What is the right balance between new tools and information streams, on the one hand, and minimizing the impact of information overload on the other? Are people losing their ability to reflect rather than just react?

chaliaUID: 2589767

Background reading

SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Make it simple

The next thing in technology, says Andreas Kluth, is not just big but truly huge: the conquest of complexity

Oct 28th 2004 | From The Economist print edition

“THE computer knows me as its enemy,” says John Maeda. “Everything I touch doesn't work.” Take those “plug-and-play” n. 即插即用 devices, such as printers and digital cameras, that any personal computer (PC) allegedly adv. 依其申述 recognises automatically as soon as they are plugged into an orifice called a USB port at the back of the PC. Whenever Mr Maeda plugs something in, he says, his PC sends a long and incomprehensible error message from Windows, Microsoft's ubiquitous adj. 到处存在的，遍在的 operating system. But he knows from bitter experience that the gist n. 要点，要旨 of it is no.


At first glance, Mr Maeda's troubles might not seem very noteworthy. Who has not watched Windows crash and reboot v. 重新启动without provocation n.  激怒, 挑拨, 刺激, downloaded endless anti-virus programs to reclaim a moribund adj.垂死的 hard disc, fiddled with用手胡乱拨弄 cables and settings to hook up将 ... 联接起来 a printer, and sometimes simply given up? Yet Mr Maeda is not just any old technophobic user. He has a master's degree in computer science and a PhD in interface n. 界面，接触面 design, and is currently a professor in computer design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is, in short, one of the world's foremost computer geeks n.男孩, 伙计. Mr Maeda concluded that if he, of all people, cannot master the technology needed to use computers effectively, it is time to declare a crisis. So, earlier this year, he launched a new research initiative called “Simplicity” at the MIT Media Lab. Its mission is to look for ways out of today's mess.


Mr Maeda has plenty of sympathisers. “It is time for us to rise up with a profound demand,” declared the late Michael Dertouzos in his 2001 book, “The Unfinished Revolution”: “Make our computers simpler to use!” Donald Norman, a long-standing advocate of design simplicity, concurs. v. 意见相同，一致，互助 “Today's technology is intrusive adj.  打扰的, 插入的 and overbearing. adj. 难忍的 It leaves us with no moments of silence, with less time to ourselves, with a sense of diminished control over our lives,” he writes in his book, “The Invisible Computer”. “People are analogue, not digital; biological, not mechanical. It is time for human-centred technology, a humane technology.”


The information-technology (IT) industry itself is long past denial. Greg Papadopoulos, chief technologist at Sun Microsystems, a maker of powerful corporate computers, says that IT today is “in a state that we should be ashamed; it's embarrassing.” Ray Lane, a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of the most prominent adj.  卓越的, 突出的, 显著的technology financiers in Silicon Valley, explains: “Complexity is holding our industry back right now. A lot of what is bought and paid for doesn't get implemented because of complexity. Maybe this is the industry's biggest challenge.” Even Microsoft, which people like Mr Lane identify as a prime culprit, is apologetic. “So far, most people would say that technology has made life more complex,” concedes Chris Capossela, the boss of Microsoft's desktop applications.例子

The economic costs of IT complexity are hard to quantify but probably exorbitant. adj.过度的,过高的The Standish Group, a research outfit v.装配,配置that tracks corporate IT purchases, has found that 66% of all IT projects either fail outright or take much longer to install than expected because of their complexity. Among very big IT projects—those costing over $10m apiece—98% fall short.

Gartner, another research firm, uses other proxies n.取代物; 代理权; for complexity. An average firm's computer networks are down for an unplanned 175 hours a year, calculates Gartner, causing an average loss of over $7m. On top of that, employees waste an average of one week a year struggling with their recalcitrant PCs. And itinerant employees, such as salesmen, incur an extra $4,400 a year in IT costs, says the firm.


Tony Picardi, a boffin at IDC, yet another big research firm, comes up with perhaps the most frightening number. When he polled v.对...进行民意测验;投票 a sample of firms 15 years ago, they were spending 75% of their IT budget on new hardware and software and 25% on fixing the systems that they already had; now that ratio has been reversed—70-80% of IT spending goes on fixing things rather than buying new systems. According to Mr Picardi, this suggests that this year alone IT complexity will cost firms worldwide some $750 billion. Even this, however, does not account for the burden on consumers, whether measured in the cost of call-centres and help desks, in the amount of gadgets and features never used because they are so byzantine adj.错综复杂的, or in sheer adj.十足的,完全的 frustration.

Why now?


Complaints about complex technology are, of course, nothing new. Arguably, IT has become more complex in each of the 45 years since the integrated circuit made its debut. n. 初次登场，首次露面But a few things have happened in the past three years that now add a greater sense of urgency.

The most obvious change is the IT bust that followed the dotcom n. 商业网站，网站boom繁荣,激增,猛涨 of the late 1990s. After a decade of strong growth, the IT industry suddenly started shrinking in 2001 (see chart 1). In early 2000 it accounted for 35% of America's S&P 500 index; today its share is down to about 15%. “For the past three years, the tech industry's old formula—build it and they come—has no longer worked,” says Pip Coburn, a technology analyst at UBS, an investment bank. For technology vendors, he thinks, this is the sort of trauma挫折,损伤 that precedes a paradigm n. 范例，示范shift. Customers no longer demand “hot” technologies, but instead want “cold” technologies, such as integration software, that help them stitch v.缝,缝补together and simplify the fancy systems they bought during the boom years.

Steven Milunovich, an analyst at Merrill Lynch, another bank, offers a further reason why simplicity is only now becoming a big issue. He argues that the IT industry progresses in 15-year waves. In the first wave, during the 1970s and early 1980s, companies installed big mainframe n. 主机，大型计算机computers; in the second wave, they put in PCs that were hooked up to “server” computers in the basement; and in the third wave, which is breaking now, they are beginning to connect every gadget n.  小器具; 小玩意; 小配件 that employees might use, from hand-held computers to mobile phones, to the internet.


The mainframe era, says Mr Milunovich, was dominated by proprietary adj. 专利的，所有权的technology (above all, IBM's), used mostly to automate the back offices of companies, so the number of people actually working with it was small. In the PC era, de facto adj. 事实上的，实际的standards (ie, Microsoft's) ruled, and technology was used for word processors and spreadsheets n.  电子制表软件, 电子数据表to make companies' front offices more productive, so the number of people using technology multiplied tenfold. adv. 成十倍，成十重And in the internet era, Mr Milunovich says, de jure法律上地; 权利上地standards (those agreed on by industry consortia) are taking over, and every single employee will be expected to use technology, resulting in another tenfold increase in numbers.

Moreover, the boundaries between office, car and home will become increasingly blurred and will eventually disappear altogether. In rich countries, virtually the entire population will be expected to be permanently connected to the internet, both as employees and as consumers. This will at last make IT pervasive adj. 普遍的，蔓延的，渗透的 and ubiquitous, adj. 到处存在的，遍在的 like electricity or telephones before it, so the emphasis will shift towards making gadgets and networks simple to use.


UBS's Mr Coburn adds a demographic observation. Today, he says, some 70% of the world's population are “analogues”, who are “terrified by technology”, and for whom the pain of technology “is not just the time it takes to figure out new gadgets but the pain of feeling stupid at each moment along the way”. Another 15% are “digital immigrants”, typically thirty-somethings who adopted technology as young adults; and the other 15% are “digital natives”, teenagers and young adults who have never known and cannot imagine life without IM (instant messaging, in case you are an analogue). But a decade from now, Mr Coburn says, virtually the entire population will be digital natives or immigrants, as the ageing analogues convert to avoid social isolation. Once again, the needs of these converts point to a hugely increased demand for simplicity.

The question is whether this sort of technology can ever become simple, and if so, how. This survey will analyse the causes of technological complexity both for firms and for consumers, evaluate the main efforts toward simplification by IT and telecom vendors today, and consider what the growing demands for simplicity mean for these industries. A good place to start is in the past.

chaliaUID: 2589767

Opening statements


The moderator's opening remarks

Feb 26th 2008 | Mr Daniel Franklin

Our first debate in this series involved a vital area of public policy. For this second debate the focus is firmly on the individual, and the impact of technology on our lives. The question at hand should make us all examine our own use of technology, and perhaps produce surprising answers.
We all use technology. Everyone reading or taking part in this debate is of course connected to the internet. For that, at least, let us be thankful.

But even as it opens up extraordinary new possibilities, is technology making our lives too complicated? I am able to write this opening statement far away from my desk, courtesy of wireless connectivity, on a hotel veranda n. 阳台，游廊overlooking the English Channel on a Sunday morning: miraculous simplicity! Yet my wife, whose birthday we are celebrating here, may view it differently: an unfortunate complication of her special day. This debate is about a question many of us grapple vt. 抓住with on a daily basis.

Two dimensions of the issue emerge from the thoughtful opening statements. First, Richard Szafranski, a partner at Toffler Associates, raises the broad impact of technology on our environment: its contribution to global warming, the creation of new chemical compounds with uncertain impact on life and health, the invention of weapons of mass destruction. Surely, he argues, such things complicate our lives.

Second, and more palpably adv. 摸得出地，明显地, there is the matter of the breakneck adj.极快的,非常危险development of personal technology. Mr Szafranski argues that the abundance of this stuff is such that we suffer from "over-choice" as well as "surplus complexity": all those ring tones to choose from and personal devices to be baffled adj. 阻碍的，阻挡的，困扰的，带障板的 by. Far from simplifying our lives, choosing between so many options is hard and increasingly complicated work.

John Maeda, president elect of the Rhode Island School of Design, accepts that technology can add complexity to our lives, and we can all empathise with tales of maddening computer crashes and infuriating adj.  使人十分生气的, 令人大怒的 printer glitches. n.  小故障But, he claims, it also has the capacity to remove even greater complexity that existed beforehand: who wouldn't grapple with a fidgety adj. 烦躁的，不安的 hearing-aid if in the end it overcomes deafness(聋人不会嫌弃助听器麻烦). Furthermore, he believes, we are tech "explorers", experimenting and adapting technologies to our needs over time: he raises the prospect that we are entering a time of simplification, a "Renaissance n. 文艺复兴，再生 of design-led development." In short, "the bad rap given to technologies today will be only temporary."(我们正在向简单迈进)

Where does the balance lie? That is what I hope this debate will clarify. Mr Maeda reckons there is 90% upside and 10% downside; Mr Szafranski, without putting a number on it, thinks it's the other way around. What do you think?

One last word before the debate begins. You have, rightly, on previous occasions looked closely and critically at the wording of the propositions. In this case, as Mr Szafranski notes, it might be objected that technology didn't "promise" anything, though I think it's probably fair to say that many people assumed (and tech companies routinely claim) that its purpose is to simplify not complicate. "It didn't work," asserts Mr Szafranski. Or did it?




The proposer's opening remarks

Feb 26th 2008 | Mr Richard Szafranski

Standing back, we now can be fairly certain that the science and engineering that enabled humans to create today's engines of industrialisation, electrification, physics, medicine, genetics and the appliances of the information age also added significant complexity to our lives. Technology warmed the planet, added pollutants to the atmosphere and oceans, affected life forms by changing the background magnetic field (including adding increased extremely low-frequency radiation), enabled nuclear weapons and created thousands of chemical compounds that can help or hurt life. One cannot conclude that the convergent adj.趋集于一点effects—social, environmental, political, economic, legal, psychological—of these technological developments simplified living or our lives. Technology has failed to simplify our lives.

指出尽管science带来了进步,但同时导致了很多问题(温室效应,大气和海洋污染,改变磁力,核武器,化学物质),并没有是生活简单了.

Coping with the challenges caused by a warming planet will not be simple. Knowing the health effects—the effects on humans and other living organisms—of various pollutants and combinations of pollutants and appropriately dealing with them will not be simple. Understanding the biological consequences of changed magnetic fields and increased point and area sources of radiation is not uncomplicated. The problems associated with nuclear weapons' proliferation n. 增殖，分芽繁殖，扩散are only less complex than the problems that would arise from the use of such weapons. And it becomes increasingly difficult to assay the interactions, the lag times and the health consequences of the chemicals we ingest, even those we consume intentionally. Simpler lives? No.

Dealing with any one of these challenges is not simple; they are multi-dimensional and have converged and co-exist. "Technology"—shorthand for the fruits of science and engineering—and its convergent unintended and intended consequences have complicated our lives.

Take some familiar but trivial examples. The technologies that enable mass customisation, the internet and wireless devices and their applications, but a small sample, cause humans two problems that complicate our lives immensely. First, over-choice. Second, surplus complexity. Over-choice describes the human response to alternatives and variations so numerous, so potentially satisfying and so complex that humans can no longer decide easily. "Surplus complexity" is unnecessary and unwanted complexity.

We—hundreds of millions of us and growing—embrace the very technologies that make our lives and our relationships more difficult and fill many of our waking moments with activity. We love—to the point of gluttony n. 暴饮暴食—to communicate, play, invent, learn, imagine and acquire. Information technology has given us tools to do all of those anywhere and round the clock. We are awash adj.被浪冲打的in the benefits that high-bandwidth n. 高带域fixed and mobile wireless communications, email, text messages, pictures, games, data and information give us, including instant access to thousands of products. The seductive ease with which we can engage in any and all of those activities, or quests or endeavours makes it difficult and stressful to not be overwhelmed by choices. Choosing takes time and our time is not unlimited. Devices and applications that save us labour in one area may merely allow us, and sometimes seem to compel vt. 强迫 us, to invest labour in other areas.(一方面给我们方便的同时,在其他领域让我们投入更多的时间)

We say or hear, "I must do my email tonight, or by tomorrow I'll have over 600 to read." We want to buy a pot. Search on "pottery" and get 254,000,000 results. We want to find the John Li we met at a conference. Search on "John Li" and get 8,600,000 results.(想用电脑寻找信息,但是搜索之后发行有numerous信息,于是导致复杂) Do I do email, narrow the searches, eat dinner, pick up my laundry or call a friend? Because technology has spawned adj. 孵化的numerous complex variations I must repeatedly go through the act of evaluating and choosing — a labour of deciding. Technology has imposed the encumbrance of over-choice on us.

Over-choice is made more likely and burdensome by the complexity resident in each of the choices that are presented to us. There are hundreds of choices within the seemingly simple one of getting a cellular telephone and choosing a provider and a plan. Some phones also are Pocket PCs with CDMA and GSM, video-players, music-players, web browsers, calculators and so forth.
(电话有很多功能,我们必须辨别哪些功能会对我们有效,然后选择到底买什么)One must decide where and when the complexity becomes surplus. Choosing ring tones from among the surplus complexity evident in the thousands of tones available is almost unfathomable adj.  深不可测的, 难解的, 无底的over-choice.

Businesses know that solutions to over-choice, on the one hand, and engineered surplus complexity, on the other, can produce revenue. Their solutions may complicate the problems. It may be that few consumers have or take the time to read a website's terms of services, privacy policy or licensing agreement before hitting "I agree." The willing or inadvertent adj.不注意的, 不慎的, 怠慢的disclosure of information about behaviour and the data bases that record past searches create the potential for precise marketing. Behavioural marketing, for example, uses data from multiple sources, including data in the public domain n. 领域(地), 势力范围and data acquired by a target's past web searches, to push tailored products and services. More choices. When surplus complexity is engineered into a product—of a product's, say, 41 features, the consumer only wanted two—consumers pay for unnecessary and unused features. Unbundling n. 分类计价 is seen by some businesses or some industries as such radical customization that it is priced prohibitively We live in the multifaceted bundles that technology has enabled.

The system as a whole, the system we create and sustain and live in, now has so many and so complex separate parts that understanding consequential interactions, potential outcomes—intended and unintended—and long-term effects is more difficult than ever in human history. One might argue that the genesis of problems like over-choice and surplus complexity is in human frailty n.弱点, 缺陷or human wants satisfied by technology, but, without technology, more simplicity would endure. Technology is the beneficial culprit n.被控犯罪的人; 罪犯; that allowed us to do this.

One cannot conclude that humans making bad choices are the real culprit unless one ascribes to the unborn—past and future—the ability to choose. Technology, personified as defendant, could probably prove "I made no promises." Just so, but the issue under consideration is less any specific promise asserted than it was the promising possibilities of making our lives simpler that lured us, as we humans employed technology to solve problems and create opportunities.

It did not work.




The opposition's opening remarks

Feb 26th 2008 | Mr John Maeda

Technology exists to advance and enhance our world in new ways. Sometimes it lets us add a new capability to our daily routine like the guilty pleasure of SMS-ing during a boring meeting. In other cases technology literally takes the pain away, as anyone with a successful hip replacement can attest. Adopting any technology is a conscious act of adding complexity to our lives. However while adding new complexities, a successful technology is able to at least dampen and at times completely remove the greater complexities that existed prior.

Fitting a hearing aid to your ear on a daily basis adds complexity, but the benefit of being able to hear significantly better makes life simpler. Keeping the fire of your Blackberry constantly lit drives you crazy, but your BB lets you be CEO while slipping away to attend your son's soccer game. Automobiles keep you stuck in traffic and expend excessive energy, but these same technologies can transport you to the mountains or beach for repose. When looking at your life overall, there should be no doubt that technology has simplified many aspects of your existence. It has given you options to live your life how you want and when you want in ways that were never before possible. And truly, what is more simple than being free?

The bad rap given to technologies today will be only temporary. Yes my wireless Bluetooth headset sometimes forgets that my iPhone exists even when they are only a millimeter n.  公厘, 毫米 apart. Yes a few months ago my computer crashed for the first time in three years and I lost all my data. Yes my laser printer and I will dance an odd lovers game of "I could have sworn I told you to print but you don't seem to notice me." But we are in a transitional period where technologies are brittle adj.难相处的,易损坏的; not because they are failing per se本身— they are just new and experimental. And yes, we are all the unlikely guinea pigs that are happier on some days than others. Do you think the people that first owned and drove automobiles lived untroubled lives? I think not, but the benefits likely outweighed any setbacks otherwise we would still be riding horses today.

Remember that computers did not really take off until less than ten years ago. They were these big, ugly, and clunky adj. 笨重的boxes with even bigger "TV sets" attached to them. Now within a size smaller than my fist a computer that is hundreds of times more powerful sits within my palm. And within a few months it will become twice as powerful. In the history of humankind, there have never been similar technological advances happening at the incredible rate of change today. The glitches are there because we are all explorers, and just haven't been told we are thus so.

Recognise simplicity as being about two goals realised simultaneously adv.  同时地: the saving of time to realise efficiencies, and later wasting the time that you have gained on some humanly pursuit. Thus true simplicity in life is one part technology, and the other part away from technology. Much confusion lies today in the fact that technology has invaded many of our recreational activities such as music listening and video viewing. Thus as explorers in technology, we have ventured out of just the "got-to-have" categories of pacemakers and other life-saving necessities, into the "nice-to-have" categories of iPods and other life-styling gadgetry. Our thirst for exotic experiences in technology only pushes us further down the path of increasing unpredictability. Engaging new technologies is about embracing new inventions and the passion for cultural advancement — it is a game usually only reserved for the young that we can now play no matter how old we are.

We voluntarily let technology enter our lives in the infantile state that it currently exists, and the challenge is to wait for it to mature to something we can all be proud of. Patience is a virtue n.美德 I am told, and I await the many improvements that lie ahead. To say that technology is failing to simplify our lives misses the point that in the past decade we have lived in an era of breakneck adj.非常危险的 innovation. This pace is fortunately slowing and industries are retrenching v.  节省; 缩短; 删除; 紧缩, 节省 so that design-led approaches can take command to give root to more meaningful technology experiences. There are advanced developments underway at MIT, CMU, and Stanford for improving user interfaces, data visualisation, network reliability, and energy management that will reduce the 10% of downsides we feel today compared with the 90% of upsides brought on by both life-saving and life-styling technologies.

The conveniences gained of extended life spans click-to-buy anything off of the web, and even online dating are all concrete examples of enhancement that vastly simplify our lives. They make our lives more complex in addition: a longer life means more to think about, an online purchase can come in the wrong colour, and a virtual date can go awry. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Often you will find that the answer is: Yes. When any newer technology is concerned, you are adopting the cause of innovation and as such should expect some turbulence along the way. In the near future we will see a renaissance in design-led technology developments that will reduce the bumpiness n.  崎岖不平we currently experience to give way to simplicity every day. Technology will unite with design and the arts in unprecedented adj.空前的 harmony such that not only will our lives be simplified, but more importantly satisfying.

chaliaUID: 2589767

Guest

chaliaUID: 2589767

Rebuttal statements

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Feb 29th 2008 | Mr Daniel Franklin

This debate is full of surprises. I did not expect the seemingly straightforward proposition to take us on a journey to the Ghoramara and Carteret islanders (mentioned by Richard Szafranski in his rebuttal). Nor did I think we would find Socrates ("A multitude of books distracts the mind") and The Beatles ("It won't be long") cited to sum up the arguments of the two camps; yet that is what our first guest speaker, Jack Santos, entertainingly does.

More predictable, perhaps, was the dissection of the wording of the proposition, right down to what the meaning of the word "our" is in this context. Several of the comments so far have found the proposition wanting. "The question is somewhat vague," comments uh2l. It is "perhaps somewhat deceptive", notes Mark Norman. It is "the wrong question to ask", says idealab. "What is the meaning of simplify?" asks jnov.

Perhaps it is the loose wording that has allowed the debate to take some unexpected turns. But there seem to be some broad areas of both agreement and disagreement. I'd like to highlight two of these for the rest of the debate.

First, both Richard Szafranski and John Maeda agree that at least to some extent technology has created complexity. But they disagree about whether on balance it has done more to complicate our lives or to simplify them, and about whether things will improve in the near future.

Second, to the extent that technology does complicate lives—for example by creating a bewildering v.  使迷惑; 使昏乱; 使不知所措 number of choices—what's to blame. Does the problem lie with the technology itself, or with ourselves? As one commenter, 717921, puts it: "Technology didn't create the mess this planet has become. Human beings with their bad use of technology did."

The early voting went heavily against the proposition, but the gap has since narrowed. It will be interesting to see whether the catch-up continues.

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Feb 29th 2008 | Mr Richard Szafranski

Looking very far forward, as the opposing house apparently has, one could harbour hope that the maturation of today's "infantile state" of technologies—might, when and if they mature—eventually become more integrative and simplifying than dissipative adj. 散逸的(耗散的，消耗性的，损耗的，浪费的) and complicating. Neither house, however, disagrees with the proposition that technology presently complicates our lives. To argue, as the opposing house does, that "adopting any technology is a conscious act of adding complexity to our lives" is, we are affirmed to note, to agree with and to accept this house's position.

Four points can be made in rebuttal, nonetheless: first, the debate is about today; second, the issue embraces the compounded complexifying effects of all technologies on all our lives; third, given that the rate of change is accelerating, more complexity, rather than less, may well characterise the future; and, fourth, our ability to choose to adopt or not adopt a technology may be constrained by choices others have made already.

Focus on today. As our house understands it, this debate focuses on today's unfulfilled promises. "The future," opined the physicist, Edward Teller, "does not exist. It must be created microsecond n.  一百万分之一秒 by microsecond by every living being and thing in the universe." This house will not argue that today's juvenile technologies might eventually prove to be more simplifying than complicating. There are no data upon which to base that position. Thus, we must respectfully reject the other house's view. Where we find ourselves in our lives today is that technologies today, not the promise of technologies tomorrow, are failing to simplify our lives.

Think beyond the elites n.  精华; 中坚分子; 精锐. This house also is obliged to take, and does take, a rather catholic view of the meaning and significance of the adjective "our" in arguing that technology has not simplified our lives. Our lives, we argue, are the lives of humankind—all our lives—not just the lives of the well-educated and well-heeled adj. 富有的elites in Boston, Beijing, London, Paris or Tokyo. Dalliance n.调戏, 调情 in what our house would characterise as simple (in our opening argument we called these "familiar but trivial") elitist technological examples is interesting, but lacks appreciation of the full gravitas of the consequences of technological innovation for all of us today. The technological innovations of elites, invented by and for elites—including short message service (SMS), hip replacements, hearing-aids助听器, the Blackberry, Bluetooth headsets, the iPhone and enhancements in interfaces, data visualisation, network reliability and energy management—have not simplified the majority of humans' lives.

Regardless of the judgments of the elites, it is imperative adj.  命令式的,急需的 in this debate, this house believes, that we not ignore the complicating effects of technology on the lives of that larger set of folks in our humankind. Technology has not simplified the lives of the majority of the people on the planet, including, as we have asserted, many of the elites. The elites, a small percentage of the planet's population, depend on an information infrastructure n.  下部构造, 基础, 下部组织 so fragile that any determined attacker easily can render it dysfunctional within hours, for example. Of the majority, technology has complicated their lives, even though many live their lives at the subsistence level.

Consider that the technologies of efficient, technologically advanced logging have not simplified the lives of the Mashco-Piro, Yora, Amahuaca and Yaminahuas tribes in South America. Rising seas have not simplified the lives of the Ghoramara and Carteret islanders. Earth excavation n.挖掘, 挖掘的洞, 发掘 technologies have not simplified the lives of the miners in the Shandong province in China. And the technological innovation of automatic weapons acquired by the Janjaweed ("a man with a gun on a horse") has not simplified the lives of the displaced in Darfur. None of our lives is simplified by the technologies that resulted in nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India, perhaps Israel and perhaps North Korea. Thus, we would argue, the technological innovations the other house cites are interesting, but, for the purposes of this debate, they do not rise quite to the level of significance. To worry about one's handheld device communicating with one's printer, we would argue, is to miss the big and complicated technology-induced worries to which all of us should attend.

Convergences n.集中, 一起 complexify. Much more important, we assert, are the global, convergent and consequential effects of accelerating technological change: industrialisation, electrification, physics, medicine, genetics and the appliances of the information age. These convergences, we assert, complicate all our lives. The opposing house's opening argument, for whatever reason, seemed to miss the elephant in the living room. That issue is profoundly worrisome. technological complexity: that the engines of technological change haves warmed the planet, added pollutants to the atmosphere and oceans, affected life forms by changing the background magnetic field, enabled nuclear weapons and created thousands of chemical compounds that can help or hurt life. It would be difficult to craft arguments that dispute the facts of or the implications of any one of these complexifying effects, let alone the consequences of their convergences.

Others chose for us and we choose for others. Ours is not the House of Ned Ludd, but the facts are that there is much in technological change we did not choose. We can only strive to manage the complexity and consequences. Governments chose nuclear weapons, electrification and data-mining for national security. Businesses chose industrialisation. We are choosing global connectivity, new drugs and vehicles powered by fossil fuels. Just as others chose to unleash the technologies that have complicated our lives, we are making choices that inevitably will affect the lives of those who follow us and complicate their lives in ways we cannot today foresee.

One cannot conclude that the convergent effects—social, environmental, medical, political, economic, legal and psychological—of all the developments that new technologies have inspired or caused have simplified living our lives. Technology, we are forced to conclude and reassert, even after evaluating the other house's learned opening statement, has complicated our lives. This house asserts the facts of the matter. The opposing house seems to hope that technology will deliver a simpler future.

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Feb 29th 2008 | Mr John Maeda

As Richard Szafranski points out, technological advancements have brought about much change for the worse in our world, and these include many pollutant by-products with both visible and invisible consequences. There is an interminable adj.  无限的, 冗长的list of all the wrongs set forth by human beings' constant tampering v.  损害, 削弱; 影响; 窜改; 贿赂; 篡改 and fidgeting with the workings of the world in the name of curiosity. But were it not for the humans long ago who creatively discovered how to keep a fire going to keep themselves warm—a technology for its time—our ancestors would likely not have made it through many cold winters and we really would not be having this discussion at all.

Or even consider the nature of this online debate, hosted by The Economist and made possible by the internet. Though in the past this technology just provided missile guidance computations n.  计算, 计量, 计数 for the military, instead today here we are online and thinking together in an open forum of tens of thousands of people. At this very moment and requiring no effort on your part to travel afar or even walk to another room, it would seem technology has simplified your ability to engage in a global discourse. n.  谈话, 进道, 演讲v.  谈论; 演说

Wouldn't you agree?

Around three years ago I began to tire of technology and all of the associated downsides like daily computer crashes, terrible oil spills in pristine adj.  原来的, 原始的, 古时的 waters killing fish and other wildlife, or the endless pool of email in which we all wade and sometimes come close to drowning in. I am sure you know the general feeling, shared by Mr Szafranski's own accounts. My own journey of concern led me to envisioning the ten "laws of simplicity" as a means to cope and better understand the core issues of modern technology issues today. To give the conclusion upfront, it is really about having the right choices in life. Mr Szafranski is correct in pointing out that there is too much choice in the world. Like many things in life, this problem of having to make decisions is also an opportunity to make choices. By the way, isn't having choice, freedom?
A colleague of mine, Sarah, said that her friend had contracted mercury poisoning from eating too much sushi in New York. Her story immediately conjured up my regular reaction of fright on the airplane to: "Sir, would you like the fish, meat, or vegetarian option?", where I instead hear in my head, "Sir, would you like mercury poisoning, mad cow disease, or genetically engineered crops?" That is until Sarah popped my bubble when she added that her friend religiously ate sushi three or four times per week. I should note that the average Japanese person might have sushi once every two or three weeks, which explains why Tokyo-ites might avoid the hospital by simply heeding the sage wisdom of observing moderation in one's diet. Would it have been better if the sushi restaurant simply refused to serve Sarah's zealous friend and thus made the choice unavailable to him?

By creating legislation to rid the problem of creating situations of over-choice and surplus complexity, can we make the world a simpler place? Probably. And although Mr Szafranski does not pose a particular solution to the issue at hand, legislation is the only likely route to go if the desire is to limit choice and control complexity. But the world is bound to become a boring one if we go that route. Technology is like anything in life. Do too much of it and you pay the consequences. Use it in moderation and the benefits will outweigh the effort you put in.

Having choice is good, especially when the available choices are all excellent ones. The promise of technology to simplify our lives is not met when 35 of the 41 features on Mr Szafranski's hypothetical product are irrelevant and you really only use one or two. If the product is a cellphone, you are likely to use the one feature that works the majority of the time, the phone; on a digital music player you are unlikely to use the calendar function and instead choose its primary function, playing music. Extraneous adj.无关系的, 外来 features are added to many products today because of the natural love for experimentation among the technologists that design these objects. Their conscious play in the marketplace is important, for it challenges the norm of how we think about our products. They are innovating and taking risks, which is what we are taught as a point of pride in the educational system of the US and the first world.

A new generation of designers is emerging that will remove the 35 or so features and replace them with three or four new and excellent capabilities that would not have been invented if it were not for the 35 innovative failures that came before. We live in an open laboratory of ideas today that over the next ten years are being edited for fuller human consumption, with the power of design married to advances in technology. Think of the simplicity of using Google's interface to search any term in the world and you will immediately feel confident about how a well-designed technology experience can work.

We live in an age of unparalleled adj.  无比的, 空前的, 优良无比的 progress, when creative innovations bear the fruit of advanced experimentation on every corner. You might ask yourself, "Why experiment on me?" The answer is because we live in an exciting era that is still under construction, where you can think of yourself as more of a test pilot than just a regular everyday customer. If you want a hassle-free无障碍product, go and buy a pair of old-fashioned cotton socks instead of the latest iPod. The socks may make you feel warmer, but the videos of your family will warm your heart even more.

chaliaUID: 2589767

Guest

chaliaUID: 2589767

Closing statements

The moderator'sn. 调解人，仲裁人 closing remarks

Mar 5th 2008 | Mr Daniel Franklin  

Perhaps I should begin this closing statement by paraphrasing the proposition n. 建议，命题，主张: "If the promise of an Economist debate is to simplify the topic, it is failing."

This debate has wandered in a number of directions—enjoyable ones, to be sure—partly because the proposition itself was loose enough to allow this. "This is another non-issue put forth by The Economist," complains Art Teacher. "Obviously technology has made our world more complex, it's just that complexity itself doesn't equal a mistake."

AndyExpat asks for a point of order from me as moderator on what the question here really is. We should not be debating whether or not technology promises to simplify our lives, he says, since the "if" part of the proposition is assumed to be true. It follows, he says, that what we have to decide is whether the promise is being kept or not.

He is right. And maybe that is what many people will choose to focus on as they decide on their vote in the final stretch. Yet I am glad the debate has actually ranged rather more widely, since the wandering has been interesting.

One of the dimensions explored has been whether technology promised to make life better, or just simpler—not necessarily the same thing. David Karger, an MIT professor and a guest contributor to the debate, notes that neither side addresses the fact that "sometimes technological complexity is wonderful": take the many-sided delights of a Frank Gehry building, he says, or the complex pleasures of Second Life.

Many of the contributors have picked up the point about whether it is technology itself that creates complexity, or our own use of it. ("Technology is a good servant, but a bad master," says Bhujangadev, "it is up to us how we use it.")

Others have grappled vt. 抓住with the question of balance: yes, they accept, technology complicates our lives, but it also simplifies things. The question for jnov is which is more correct, and for himself he has no doubt about the answer: his life is certainly made simpler because of technology.

In their closing statements Richard Szafranski (in favour of the motion) and John Maeda (against) both seek to make their case while also acknowledging with good grace the strength of their opponent's argument. Mr Szafranski identifies important areas of agreement: both sides accept that technology can make life more complex, and that it can sometimes simplify too. Mr Maeda, stressing the dynamics of technological change over time, is confident that improvements will come in due course and places the responsibility firmly in our own hands.

That sentiment is echoed in a highly personal way in one comment that caught my eye (as it happens, not in our own debating chamber, but on Josh Catone's blog, "ReadWriteWeb", which took up our theme). The heartfelt comment was this: "For all the many hours a day I use my computer/iphone/TV/videocamera/etc, I like to remember (and if I don't, my wife will be sure to remind me) to TURN THE DAMN THING OFF."

The proposer's closing remarks

Mar 5th 2008 | Mr Richard Szafranski

Before making our closing, this house would like to express our most sincere appreciation to the other house for a very rich discussion. We also thank the many caring commentators who added depth and perspective to our thinking. Thanks also to those hard-working behind the scenes souls who allowed all of us to communicate apparently effortlessly.

Watching the votes roll in after the houses' opening statements, our house dolefully adv.  悲哀地; 寂寞地envisioned v.  想像; 预想that we might have to craft a closing argument that went something like a timid "We surrender," or a pugnacious adj.  好斗的"Oh yeah!" or a whiny "Mommy, Johnny hit meeeee!"

But, our house cannot yield: we truly believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the position that technology has failed to simplify our lives. Our house cannot be pugnacious because the issue before us demands no less than what it is getting: a good, lively, and multi-faceted discussion among reasonable men and women of different cultures with different experiences and different hopes. And our house will not whine v.  报怨声, 发牢骚, 哭诉; 哀诉 because the opposing house is a gracious adj.  亲切的; 高尚的house and because we believe the issue on the table is still in play for the discerning to decide.

To inform decision making and to communicate our position on the issue more clearly, our house has done the hard work of reading all the comments posted, re-evaluated our own house's arguments, and studied and analysed the other house's arguments. After closely reading the other house's eloquent and thoughtful rebuttal, the pages and pages of commentary submitted from around the globe—and reflecting on the question before us and the diverse views expressed regarding the question—this house perceives three threads.

First, reading within the comments—notwithstanding how a commentator voted—there seems to be broad agreement threaded throughout that indeed technology has not simplified our lives. The other house already asserted this. We, of course, agree with the other house that "Adopting any technology is a conscious act of adding complexity to our lives." We also agree with the other house that some technologies that serve us "make our lives more complex in addition." Those positions are central to the question—simplify or complicate—before us. Given what the other house argued or conceded, both houses appear to agree.

The second thread woven within warp and woof of the comments is that there seems to be broad agreement that we humans really don't care that technology has failed to simplify our lives. We are captivated by the value that technology provides.

The benefits—the richness, the reach, the diversity, the opportunities—that technology brings humankind far outweigh the disadvantages of not having simpler lives. "Do the positives outweigh the negatives?" the other house asked and answered, "Often you will find that the answer is: Yes." Both houses agree that "often" that is so. Nor could this house disagree with the other house's sage observation: "Technology is like anything in life. Do too much of it and you pay the consequences. Use it in moderation and the benefits will outweigh the effort you put in." Both houses agree that technology has consequences.

The third thread, however, appeared to be some apparent dissension n.  意见不合, 倾轧, 纠纷
among the global commentators regarding the precise issue the houses are debating. Since the blame may lay at the feet of this house for its ineloquence, 不善辩 this house believes we can and must clarify the issue we are debating and, while related issues certainly are important, the issues we are not debating.

The houses are not, our house should have made clear, debating the value of technology. Technology provides value, helps us create wealth, and has, can, and will continue to enhance our lives in many ways. That technology creates "overchoice"—the requirement to select from among many potentially satisfying and complex alternatives and variations—and "surplus complexity," or unnecessary and unwanted complexity, is the state of nature in which we find ourselves. This house did not argue that these features were evil, we merely argued that they made our lives and living more complicated. The debate was not, and is not, about the value of technology.

Nor are we debating whether technology has, in many ways, made our lives better or richer. It has. The other house has—and those who joined the global conversation have—blessed us with many concrete examples of how technology improves, enriches, extends, and saves lives. The debate was not, and is not about whether or not technology sweetens living.

Had those questions been the questions being debated, there would have been no debate. However, the question before the houses is "if the promise of technology is to simplify our lives, it is failing." (In our opening statement, this house excused technology anthropomorphized from having made a "promise" in the hope that the conditional "if" would not confuse the debate.)

In answer to the question actually before the houses, this house believes and asserts that technology, good and valuable as it may be, has just not simplified our lives. Technology has complicated our lives. The complications our house advanced previously may prove to be manageable, but they pose far from simple challenges. They make living complicated.

Each person, both houses would agree and even demand, is free to ascribe v.  归因于; 归咎于one's own evaluation of the "goodness" or "badness" of the complexities technology has introduced into our lives. But neither house, both houses would agree, is free to alter the question before us.

Our house, try as we might, just cannot marshal v. 整顿，配置，汇集the data and evidence to conclude that the convergent effects—social, environmental, medical, political, economic, legal and psychological—of all the developments that new technologies have inspired or caused have simplified living our lives. The global, convergent and consequential effects of accelerating technological change—industrialisation, electrification, physics, medicine, genetics, and the appliances of the information age—may have added value, possibly even immense adj. 巨大的，广大的，非常好的value, but there can be no doubt, even given all the value and goodness and ease that technology may provide, that technology has failed to simplify our "lives."

The opposition's closing remarks

Mar 5th 2008 | Mr John Maeda  

Advances in technology by themselves do not change our lives, but how and when we adopt them does. Freedom to choose our interactions with technology rightfully puts the responsibility for successful engagement in our own hands.

We make powerful decisions about the world when we organise and act together of our own volition. n. 自决，自主，意志力 This online debate is an exemplar forum where technology enables us to effortlessly connect and voice our opinions. After all the talk subsides, v.退落; 消失; 消退; 平静下来, 平息 however, the important question is what we will do next, because "now" vanishes the moment we look away from the browser window. We inevitably live in the future and our concern is always about what comes next: will technology make our lives better or worse?

Simplified access to information enables us to make better decisions about the personal choices we make for the future. A Google search to learn how technology has failed in our world reveals unfortunate truths that cannot be denied. Readers' comments on this debate rightfully highlight the adverse by-products of technologies in wars, the environment and social concerns. However, we pause, and acknowledge that in the counterbalance a technology (the world wide web) has given light to those realisations.

Where the future is concerned, progress is unavoidable. All we can do is make educated choices.  Technology helps us do just that and its effectiveness warrants our continued support, for if valid, the house's proposition n. 建议，命题，主张supports the direction that we should cease progress in technology as a means to achieve simplicity in the world. That's at best simplistic.

We are the inventors and consumers of the technologies that emerge. We are also their judges as well. A positive technology augments; a negative technology detriments. The market rejects poor products and practices, and instead embraces what is excellent and meaningful. Only the good technology survives in the end, on account of the constant flow of progress.

Thanks to our ability to share information of all shapes, flavours and sizes across the world, we have new technological tools for making the right decisions. Unusable products are reviewed negatively, companies with questionable practices are openly criticised and historical misuses of technology can studied to be avoided in the future. In addition, there are constructive implications, like users' suggestions for product improvement, activism for lobbying v.  游说议员; 经常出入休息室; 游说social concerns and the all-important paradigm of open-source sharing of free interchange.

I recall being particularly moved after watching "An Inconvenient Truth" and its powerful presentation of how our world is being transformed. While standing to leave the air-conditioned cinema and preparing to head out to my petrol-powered car, however, I could not help but feel guilty for having gone to see the film. As I headed home, I noted how careful I was of the speed limit and observed the reduced-fuel driving habits that I reserved only for the desperate moments when my petrol tank was near empty. A technology (the film) helped to mediate v. 斡旋，调停 my own behaviour in relation to technology; it empowered me with knowledge to make new decisions.

So I approach the next phases of technology with optimism. If you have read anything I have written a year earlier, you would be surprised to hear this coming from me. By participating in this debate, for which I have outright respect for Richard Szafranski and the shaping of his excellent arguments, I am a changed man. The negatives only outweigh the positives if we let them. To accept the fact that technology is letting us down is to accept the fact that we ourselves are letting it happen on our watch. I have seen sufficient evidence that innovators are tirelessly at work to invent a better future if we let them be. And I add myself personally to that team that will not rest until we fully succeed.

chaliaUID: 2589767

Guest

chaliaUID: 2589767

Winner announcement

March 07, 2008

Mr Daniel Franklin  

This has been a cliff-hanger. The early voting suggested a comfortable win for the "no" camp. But "yes" voters steadily clawed v.费力地夺回; 用爪子抓back ground. The final victory for the no side was a narrow one indeed: by 47% to 53%.

Why did supporters of the proposition catch up so impressively during the course of the debate? I suspect it was because they succeeded in focusing attention on the question of complexity, rather than on whether technology is more generally a good or a bad thing. And they looked at the present rather than at the future promise of technology.

Tim Ferriss, one of the guest contributors, probably spoke for many behind this momentum in saying he was voting in favour of the motion because of the "net sum of technology-driven over-choice and the resultant compulsive behaviour that complicates life rather than simplifies it."

The closeness of the vote means that honours go to both sides. Richard Szafranski and John Maeda deserve our warm appreciation for setting out their arguments so ably and in the spirit of civilised debate.

Thanks, too, to the guest contributors and the many people whose thoughtful views enriched this discussion. Every day has brought new insights. Among the recent gems n. 珠宝, 珍贵之物, I particularly liked Ryan Wanger’s observation that technology has made complex decisions more simple and simple decisions more complex.

One simple thing we have managed to make complicated is the translation of some computer keystrokes into text in our debate chamber. Too often when you have typed, say, "don’t" it has been transformed into "don’t". Apologies for that: let’s see whether we can iron out this minor irritation by the time of the next debate.