Freedom and technology

I'm in meetings most of the day so I'll leave you to talk about the new Apple iPad (I know you want to). Or, more generally, the role of technology in modern life. Does it help or does it hinder? Does it improve or does it reduce our quality of life? Or does it make no significant difference?

It's a common assumption (which I share) that the car changed and improved people's lives because it gave us the freedom to go more or less where we wanted with far less effort. Likewise, inventions such as the vacuum cleaner and the washing machine were seen as huge steps forward from the drudgery of household work.

More recently the personal computer has freed us from the typewriter and, via the Internet, has opened up a whole new world. Some would argue that communication technology was responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, in which case millions - possibly billions - of people have reason to be grateful.

The iPad is simply the latest in a long line of innovative products. But has technology genuinely improved our lives? Or have we become slaves to things like computers, televisions and mobile phones?

Readers might like to suggest one product from the last 50 years that has given us greater freedom, and one that has "enslaved" us.

As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening".

Freedom and technology

The Independent Magazine has published a list - '101 gadgets that changed the world'. The question I'd like to pose is this: which of the 101 inventions featured in the Independent (they include everything from medicines to labour-saving devices) have genuinely given us greater freedom?

For example: the debit/credit card has made it very much easier to get our hands on cash (no more queuing in high street banks for a start), but is this a good thing? Likewise, the digital camera may be a neat piece of equipment, but do we enjoy significantly greater freedom as a result?

My top freedom-related inventions (in chronological order) include:

• The wheel (3500BC)
• Plough (AD100)
• Paper (AD105)
• Gun (14th century)
• Spectacles (1451)
• Printing press (1454)
• Flushing toilet (1597)
• Fridge (1834)
• Hyperdermic syringe (1844)
• Light bulb (1848)
• Safety match (1850s)
• Internal cumbustion engine (1859)
• Telephone (1876)
• Radio (1895)
• Aspirin (1899)
• Vacuum cleaner (1901)
• Microchip (1958)
• Consumer PC (1977)

You could, of course, make a very different list - gadgets that, in some people's opinion, have enslaved rather than liberated us. (The mobile phone!!) Likewise, I wouldn't say that life is any better (in the UK, at least) as a result of the computer or the internet, but (it could be argued) it is easier.

For the full list of '101 gadgets that changed the world', click HERE.

Environmental terrorism?

One of my least favourite organisations (Greenpeace) has been complaining about my favourite (Apple) because, they claim, Apple's gorgeous new iPhone contains "two types of hazardous substances". Not for the first time, the stunt backfired when the green crusaders were forced to admit that "All components tested appear to be compliant with the requirements of the EU RoHS directive". See HERE.

Journalist and blogger Trevor Butterworth put the whole thing in perspective when he wrote:

Greenpeace has been badgering Apple to go green for quite a while now, and the campaign has generated massive publicity for the organization. Hundreds of news stories have been written - and the latest crop note that another environmental group, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) is going to sue Apple on the basis of this new Greenpeace study and because these chemicals are a hazard to health. But it's hard, given Greenpeace's repeated failure to show a demonstrable risk to consumers from the chemicals in the iPhone, or the iPod, or the iMac, not to see this campaign as a case of environmental terrorism.

Full article HERE.

As it happens, I had dinner recently with an American friend from San Diego. During the evening he whipped out his iPhone and showed me how it works. I cannot begin to describe it. All I can say is, it looks and feels like a truly stunning piece of equipment, a genuine leap forward. I can't wait for November 9 when it's launched in Europe. Chemicals or no chemicals, I want one. And thanks to Greenpeace, I'm determined to have one.

Smoking: problem solved

Former US paratrooper Greg Billingsly sent us the above image.  Greg points out that while the outgoing US Surgeon General's 2006 report called for a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places, it also admitted, in a section called 'Technological Strategies for Controlling Secondhand Smoke', that there ARE ventilation technologies available to minimise the (alleged) hazards of secondhand smoke:

"The concept is straightforward: process a portion of the air locally and remove secondhand smoke constituents with commonly used devices mounted on ceilings. The devices use the principle of electrostatic precipitation to remove particles or a series of filters to remove particles and odors. New devices have become available recently and include ultraviolet-activated photo catalytic systems that oxidize vapor phase organic compounds. With the addition of filters to this configuration, these devices could also remove particles. However, widespread application of these systems to effectively control secondhand smoke exposure in buildings has not yet been demonstrated."

In other words, the technology exists to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing non-smokers - but it hasn't been fully utilised. One solution is to insist that proprietors who want to accommodate smokers have to apply for a license. In order to get that license they would have to install an approved ventilation system. If some businesses can't afford the technology - tough. They'll just have to be non-smoking. But that shouldn't be a problem. After all, how many times have we been told that smoking bans are good for business? The UK may have ignored this option but we are hopeful that the EU will take a more pragmatic view when it considers submissions to its Green Paper Consultation, ‘Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level’. Don't bet on it, though.

Big Brother is watching you

In response to a previous post, Caty Crawford writes: "What do people think about the news that more CCTV cameras are to be fitted with loudspeakers to allow security staff to chastise people who, for example, litter? Is it just coincidental that the Government has announced this ahead of the smoking ban?"

'Talking' CCTV cameras are nothing new. Petrol stations have had them for years, the idea being that if anyone has a problem operating the pump a member of staff can guide them through the process without leaving the till. Of course, most people now know how to operate a self-service pump so the system is very rarely used, but it did happen to me once and the sound of an anonymous, disembodied voice barking orders via a concealed speaker is quite disorientating.

Meanwhile some hospitals have already invested public money installing similar systems to stop people dropping fags ends outside the building. The irony is that increased litter is one of the consequences of banning smoking in all enclosed public places; and in order to counteract that, the authorities have to employ more officials, install more CCTV cameras, issue more fines, and so it goes on.

Many people - Home Secretary John Reid among them - will argue that if you do nothing wrong 'talking' CCTV cameras won't affect you. But there's a bigger issue here - the fact that someone, somewhere, is watching, waiting to chastise you if you put a foot out of place. I'm not condoning those who drop litter or engage in other anti-social activities, but surely education is better than this oppressive, Big Brother approach?

A few months ago Austin Williams, who runs the excellent Future Cities Project, put the explosion of CCTV cameras like this: imagine that instead of a CCTV camera on every corner, a policeman with a pair of binoculars is watching and recording your every move. Viewed in that light, CCTV cameras take on a very different complexion.