Tuesday 5 November 2013

57 - AL 17 - The Serious Silly Slide

I think we are taking ourselves entirely too seriously

I enjoy trilogies as much as the next person, but Dan and R. A., you both need to lighten up.

Dan, you have just spent three weeks going into copious detail about how people change, and R. A., you just spent three weeks talking about how if we want to be writer’s, which not many people want to do, we have to only write when we’re feeling inspired. I’m gonna be honest, neither of you have much mass market appeal.

As such, I’m going to usurp the theme of the week, and demand that next week we have to talk about favorite kind of cheese, why it is our favorite kind, and what our favorite way to use it is.

As for this week, I’m going to jump onto the serious bandwagon, and talk about a divide that I’ve been noticing lately. There is a serious divide, and usually it happens between older people and younger people, though of course there are numerous exceptions. This divide is about people who want to live in the past, or simply keep living in the present, and people who want to move into the future.

This first group I define by saying that they try to make what we currently have work, or even replace it with things from the past. Now the present is made up by a collection of things from our past, and these things range in age from a few weeks to several decades. Broadly speaking, things that are more modern that replace things from the past are vast improvements (CDs over Vinyl records for example,) and people tend to just go along with these things, partly because it doesn’t cost them much. But when it comes to more culturally integrated, sentimental things like newspapers, and tv broadcasting, and filmmaking (Yes Dan, I’m stepping on your toes a little,) there are a wealth of people who stubbornly refuse to change their ways. People like Rupert Murdoch are regularly fighting the internet and its ability to deliver news fast and in good quality because he wants to maintain his newspaper empire. TV broadcasters (again Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. (Fox)) have been stepping in to fight the internet because they want people to watch news and television shows on their tvs. Think about the Australian NBN debarcle. It is a plan to replace Australia’s century old copper wiring that was originally designed only for phone calls, but now supports Australia’s internet, with modern Fibre Optics which is a superior technology in every way. Many people are stepping in the way because they don’t want to (or don’t think people can) adapt to this much higher quality infrastructure. These people want to make the Australia of right now, and like I said, right now is comprised of things from between a few weeks, to over a century ago, work.

One doesn’t have to think very far for how all of these people could benefit from embracing new technologies. TV broadcasters for example could shut down their broadcast technology and simply use the internet to deliver tv to the people (and it would be more reliable and higher quality,) but they don’t want to do this, so they are standing in the way. Rupert Murdoch and his news empire could use this internet to deliver lightning fast, up to date news across the country, and this would actually cause more people to use their service, and they would sink less money into printing newspapers and using their broadcast equipment, basically a triple win for them. But no, they live in the present, which is really the past, so they are going to fight this huge benefit to their own company to the bitter end.

You might say it’s a case of money, but that is exactly the same mindset. Spending money now, so you won’t have to spend money again for a long time afterwards, and be able to reap the benefits for even longer. People would rather spend as little as possible now, and keep spending as little as possible for a long time afterwards, even though this might end up costing them far more in the long run, than spend a lot now. Living in the present, which is the past.

There has recently been a resurgence of vinyl record sales. They were revolutionary for their time, allowing people to hear the music they loved whenever they wanted from the comfort of their own homes. It is pretty terrible technology, especially by todays incredibly clean, high range sound. Records have no high end sound, and don’t even think about low end, and they also have a tinny, boxy sound to them. When CDs first came out, people have the identical reaction to the NBN. CDs required new technology to play (CD players, an infrastructure basically) and people didn’t want to pay for that. So they declared that CDs would never match the quality, or have the same wholesome feeling that Vinyl records did. This last sentence was of course a complete lie, with no factual backing, and said simply because people didn’t want to pay for the new infrastructure, to use this far superior technology.

Well, we all know what happened there. CDs did eventually because the standard audio delivery format, with their clean, crisp, broad range, two channel, high bit rate, 2+ hours of music storage. And aren’t we all glad that that happened?

Join me in two weeks as I continue this discussion, because next week is cheese week.

Andrew Lyons away…


Andrew Lyons.

No comments:

Post a Comment