I’ve had several conversations recently in which people expressed the opinion that technologies which rely on electricity are somehow less robust than technologies which do not. For example, your computer screen is only useful if there is a supply of electric power. By contrast, drawing a message in the dirt with a stick is something you can do even if all the electrical power in the world goes away.
So the argument, as I understand it, is that on some elemental scale text on a computer screen is somehow less real and robust, whereas drawing with a stick is more real and robust. But it seems to me that there is something flawed about this way of looking at things: “Powered by electricity” is a rather arbitrary place to draw the line.
Yes, it’s true, without electricity there are no computer screens. Yet without written language there is no writing with a stick. And written language is the far more elaborate and advanced technology than mere electrical power. We take written communication for granted because we are used to it. But it is the outcome of centuries of cultural evolution. And without the continuous influence of culture, that evolution could easily be lost.
It would take only a generation or two, in the wake of some vast disaster, for the world to become plunged into illiteracy. It might then take centuries before written language again evolves to its current level.
So maybe we shouldn’t be worrying so much about our machines being vulnerable to becoming unplugged. Maybe we should be worried about our culture being vulnerable to becoming unplugged.