Now and Then

The comparison between 'now' and 'then' is often central to discussions of new technology, and is especially evident in the NYTimes piece ('Attached to Technology and Paying a Price'). Richtel is constantly invoking a comparison between the 'way things are' and the 'way things were', either directly (e.g., "For better or worse, the consumption of media [...] has exploded. In 2008, people consumed three times as much information each day as they did in 1960") or by implication.

But I wonder what relevance exists in comparing a digital/networked present to a non-digital (or other-digital) past. Many of the arguments made during the first video we watched last class (the hip hop one, with all the shots of sad people in dark rooms looking at empty, soulless screens) revolved around us being 'less' connected/present/happy now, with our omnipresent technology, versus an alternate, past existence without that same technology. Using a perspective which relies on conceptions of 'less' (or 'more') of anything makes an implicit value judgment, i.e., there is a correct or right amount of time to spend using technology, and we are using it more than that amount.

Which is not to say that whatever that amount is is not a reachable (or even worthwhile) goal; it might be important to reduce our use and be more socially present. But, in it's oft-presented form, the argument is based on a dichotomy which does not exist. You cannot go back to the past, 'before' the technology. Even if you do not use the technology, the option to use it still exists in the world, and this is very different than simply not using a technology because you couldn't, because it didn't exist. A baseline or a version of 'normal' which is conceived based on the rules of the past cannot be relevant to today, because what was once normal by necessity—by a lack of options, and by a lack of critical awareness—is now a choice, regardless of what one chooses. Why should past definitions of normalcy influence current behaviors?