There was one day when I was using the bathroom in Boylan and when I went to wash my hands, I put my hands under the faucet expecting the water to come out of the spigot. I stared blankly in the mirror waiting for the water to come out, but it did not. I thought the sink was broken or not working for some reason. When I looked down, I realized I was supposed to turn on the water manually. I laughed at myself and then sadly realized how dependent I was on technology, to the point where I expected to wash my hands without actually even turning on the water. The readings for this week helped me think of this problem on a larger scale. What if all of New York City is so dependent on technology and technology advancing in the future?
I think in terms of New York City’s future, I see a continuing advancement and dependence on technology. With the over-crowding problem, New Yorkers expect transportation to become more efficient, faster, and able to carry more people at a time. New Yorkers probably also expect better land usage and innovation in architecture, whether that be in terms of aesthetics or functionality. I also think that art in technology will increase and maybe add to this ‘hipster’ vibe in New York City, as it did in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Advancing technology is a wonderful and beautiful thing because it gives populations more control over their environments and it can prolong life expectancies as well as even save lives. Technology allows us to stay connected and share ideas. However, I have some regards.
One of the readings talked about, “Recognizing that innovation can also result in the destruction of innovation jobs themselves [logically, how can it not].” There is so much uncertainty when it comes to knowing what direction technology will take in New York City, or anywhere for that matter, and how it will affect the city’s economy. Another reading said that, “the winners today can be losers tomorrow.” There is no way of telling how, when, at what rate, in what competitive force, etc. technology will come out in. But most importantly, I understand the pattern that the author describes. When an innovator moves into a community and creates or advances technology in a way, it acts as a beacon for other innovators to come into the same community and do the same thing. However, innovators can be considered entrepreneurs, and when they come into a community, attract others like themselves to come to the same community, and change the face of the community, it sounds comparable to gentrification. This pattern is analogous to rich people coming into an area and gentrifying it. Other reasons why I am a semi-techno-pessimist is because in order for everyone to participate and appreciate the advance in technology, people require higher levels of education and the means to pay for the advanced technology. The author does not give a solution to the fact that not everyone can participate because not everyone can afford the higher levels of education needed to become a “brain hub” or even afford to buy the new iPhone. There needs to more equity and equal opportunity for the technological revolution. There is also no mentioned place for the average folk/average family, or newly arrived immigrants.
So regarding the city’s future, I definitely see and understand the need for technology to continue to advance and make our lives easier, healthier, and better. However, the side effects of the technological revolution make technology a luxury. People need proper schooling to become innovators, and people need the means to pay for new technology. In addition, technology can replace and even discontinue many jobs, which will not be beneficial to the economy or New York City residents. It could build a wider gap between the rich and the poor. So I see myself trying to be a realist in expecting New York City to continue to become a stage of new technologies, but I am a techno-pessimist when I think about the consequences of the growth of technology.
Crystal, this is an excellent little essay! You have discovered the contradiction at the heart of most new technology since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century: new machines displace human labor. Sometimes the argument is that new technology creates more highly skilled, and thus better jobs, but not necessarily enough of them, and people must be trained for them. You should be in the de Blasio administration, for training is the motivation for their Tech Talent Pipeline programs. New technology can be hard for a city government to control–for the social good.