I just survived buying a new car, an accomplishment on par with climbing Everest. It was seriously a process, and I feel like I had to navigate the 3 dangers of the car dealership*.The final stage was having a concierge walk me through all the bells and whistles--aka buttons and tech--on the vehicle. And I just have to say that I miss the good old days of when a car was neither smart nor dumb. It was just a car.
My new vehicle is essentially a bunch of computer chips held together by a frame and wheels. Given that the basic function of a vehicle is to move a person from point A to point B, it really seems like overkill. For example, it has a 'smart glass' windshield. Why does my windshield need to be 'smart'? It's a windshield, not a rocket scientist. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, really.
Anyway, it got me thinking about how we define smart. In the society I live in, smart is understood in a fairly one-dimensional, non-inclusive way (primarily defined by a gpa). And I think now that same society is applying a one-dimensional understanding to objects, too. Like "smart cars" and other smart appliances. Yep, I guess it's one kind of smart. But there's also a kind of smart where you have a windshield that is just a piece of glass and doesn't require a computer technician and deep pockets to repair or replace. Or the smart that is a washing machine that does what you tell it instead of it sassing you and doing whatever the heck it wants.
Technology does a lot of good things, and I always enjoy finding the ways it can intelligently improve my life. I really like my car, perhaps in spite of the tech (although there are a couple of features hat make a lot of sense and I will enjoy using).
But maybe there's more than one way an object can be smart.
*akin to the dangers of the Fire Swamp in Princess Bride, in case the reference didn't make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment