Re: Analyzing technologies

[Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:22 AM 12/23/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote:
[SNIP]

> Those who have studied the development of agricultural technology know full
>well that if field work did not require considerable human decision making, it
>would have been mechanized long ago.  The tomato is a perfect example.  Many
>tomatoes are now bred to be hard enough so that they ripen slowly.  As a
>result, freshness is not a concern when picking them.  Machines now pick these
>tomatoes since the new breed of tomatoes has made the worker's judgment
>inconsequential.  As anyone who has eaten these tomatoes, something is lost in
>the process.  In doing away with the judgment of the workers, the delicious
>taste of a fresh tomato also vanishes.

While what you say here is true, my understanding is that the primary
motivation for the development of new varieties of tomatoes at the UC-Davis
Agricultural School was the need for a variety that would be tough enough to
hold up to harvesting by mechanical tomato harvesters, and ones that would
ripen slowly off the vine, enabling distribution to national markets.  The
mechanical harvester was developed to replace field labor and to automate
the harvesting process.  In part this was a response to labor availability
and costs -- a function of immigration policy -- but these were not the only
considerations.  The problem with the harvesting machine was that itchewed
up the traditional varieties of tomatoes making them unsuitable for produce
sales, sending the bright folks at UC-Davis in quest of what passes today
for a tomato but serves equally well as a hocky puck -- a plasticized,
tasteless facsimile of the real thing.  The urban generations born after
introduction of the mechanical harvester can go through an entire lifetime
and never know what a real tomato tastes like unless they frequent organic
markets or farm stands.

Regarding the larger point of this chapter, it seems to me that what
characterizes the information age is the commodification of a far larger and
varied amount of information for the market and a larger number of new
technologies which put a premium on instanteneous delivery.  Thus, as you
point out, the very definition of what is considered information becomes
subject to both technical and market forces.  In these terms, there is
undoubtedly a huge explosion in the amount of information available, but an
ever greater disconnect between "information" and intelligence or knowledge.

I especially appreciated your treatment of the class bias and basis for
information gathering, classification, and consumption.

In solidarity,
Michael  E.