May 26, 2005

The overuse of technology is particularly worrisome if we take into consideration its social implications. Before the age of the Internet and cellphone a professional used to enjoy more leisure hours per day than he or she does today, writes Nizamuddin Siddiqui

First, let me give you a medically proven fact; a man needs a maximum of 500 litres, or 10 units of blood to lead a healthy life. Now, how would you feel if you came across someone who had, say, 15 units of blood –– ten in his blood vessels and another five in blood bags dangling from his pockets.

Well, you would feel exactly as I do whenever I see a man with two cellphones and a digital diary besides the usual wristwatch and briefcase. Such a man, more often than not, sports a silver-and-gold wristwatch, in addition to a gold chain.

Now tell me. Is it necessary for your survival as a person, or even as a professional, that you carry around all the gadgets that you do religiously nowadays? And what about our elders? Were they any worse off without the cellphones, digital diaries and the odd laptop? Well, the jury is still out on that one.

I am not against the use of technology. After all one can go on and on about the merits of a cellular phone, especially in a country where it takes several months of waiting and a fair amount of palm-greasing before the state owned utility installs a telephone connection.

In such situations, the cellphone may even be described as a blessing, particularly for the people who don’t wield much influence. They simply have to pay a few thousand rupees after which they can lay claim to a cellphone and also a cellular connection. Influence peddling and gratification need not be involved.

The fact, however, remains that overuse of technology can lead to disaster. Take for instance, the overuse of refrigerants in air conditioners, refrigerators and deep freezers. It’s a scientifically proven fact that refrigerants used in these machines deplete the ozone layer that protects mankind from harm.

It is also a proven fact that western countries, seemingly cleaner than the developing ones, produce far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than the poorer economies. They, thus, cause more harm to the environment than do the less privileged countries. The sole reason, of course, is the overuse of technology.

“According to a report published in The Guardian, the United States produced at least 5.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 in 1996, while the UK produced more than 556 million metric tonnes. In comparison, Bangladesh and Pakistan only produced 23 and 94 million metric tonnes, respectively.

The overuse of technology is particularly worrisome if we take into consideration the social implications. Before the age of the Internet and cellphone, a professional used to enjoy more leisure hours per day than he does today. After all, barring emergencies, he did not have to contact the office people after duty hours.

But today, due to advances in technology, he is at the beck and call of the office staff. This has actually been borne out in a survey carried out recently by a well-known provider of communication networks and services for businesses.

In the survey it was revealed that a rising number of staff are carrying their cellphones, laptops and PDAs to holiday resorts, so that they can remain in touch with their offices during vacations. In the survey, 54 per cent of the respondents said they were “overwhelmed by pervasive communications”. More than 90 per cent of these people tell that excessive communication created “negative effects on their lives”.

It was also revealed that up to 85 per cent of the people remained accessible to their colleagues during holidays and at night. More than 60 per cent of those taking part in the survey said that, following the deployment of technologies that allows working away from office, they had to put in more hours. Twenty five per cent of the people said they put in between two and five hours more every week, while 17 per cent claimed that the amount of extra work exceeded five hours.

The findings of the survey remind one of a scene in the famous movie Sabrina, which starred Harrison Ford as the rich guy who fell for his butler’s daughter. The scene opens with Ford helping Sabrina (Julia Ormond) up the stairs and on board his private plane. (He and Sabrina actually plan to go to a secret location for a romantic getaway.)

On the way to the aircraft, Ford had told Sabrina that flying, instead of driving, to their destination would help save a lot of time. However, once on board his aircraft, Ford switched on his laptop and started working feverishly on some project.

“Sabrina looked on in amazement for a few minutes. Then she blurted out: “What has happened to the time that we planned to save by flying over?”

It is evident then that mere use of technology cannot save time, neither can it bring happiness. How technology is used is far more important.

As an analogy, let’s discuss what’s transpiring in the medical community. The biggest challenge facing gynaecologists and obstetricians today is not which technology to use in a given situation, but rather how to reduce its use in all situations. As it turns out the medical profession has been carrying out too many caesarean sections. Induced births pose yet another problem.

The Midwifery Today magazine recognizes this, as it tries to explain why caesarean sections and induced births are on the rise. One reason is greed, claims the periodical.

Caesarean sections are more common among private patients than those covered by insurance. This only shows that doctors are generally after easy money.

According to the magazine, the other main reason is convenience. The US records show that far more induced births and caesarean sections take place between Monday and Friday than during the weekends. This, says the magazine, indicates that doctors want to finish off their cases on weekdays so that they could enjoy their off days in a carefree manner. Fear of litigation may be a related factor.

The tragedy of the modern man is that it has become quite difficult for him to lead a minimalist lifestyle. He has to consume in order to survive. He has to have a wristwatch in order for him to be punctual. If he is a reporter, he has to have a cellular phone if he is to stay abreast of the latest developments in his beat.

This inevitably leads to consumerism, which according to some critics, is “extremely comfortable, as it tends to put the modern man to sleep”. Whenever he is buying a gadget or an appliance, he thinks his life would get a little better thereafter. But does it?

The challenge, therefore, is not to consume as much as we possibly can, but to carefully decide before procuring something whether or not it is really needed. The fun is not in using all that we can, but in doing so in a rather selective manner so that life is not disturbed.

In the end, let me put a simple question to you. Is it proper for anyone to flaunt his or her objects of desire regardless of who is nearby? In my opinion, whenever you show off your possessions, you should make sure that you are not hurting people.

Make sure that a labourer, for instance, is not in sight because showing off something expensive in his presence is obnoxious behaviour. After all, it is the labourer, or the farmer, who can be described as the “real son of the soil”.

It is he who produces the products or services that you and I need the most. Most other people, according to sociologists, are parasites who live off farmers, labourers and the like.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)