blogcutter

Back in 1995, the book Being Digital (by Nicholas Negroponte ) was published:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Digital

Fast forward to 2018 and Don Norman writes about being analog and more specifically, about how we are analog beings trapped in a digital world:

https://jnd.org/being_analog/

For starters, let's just say that I feel much more in synch with Norman than with Negroponte.

Now don't get me wrong. Technology has made our lives easier in a multitude of ways. But do we not have the right to decide to what degree we wish to embrace newer technologies?

Are we raising a new generation that believes that to be human means simply to be able to identify the traffic lights, motorcycles or fire hydrants in a particular two-dimensional on-screen image? What an impoverished view of the human race! Just what a piece of work IS man, anyway? And what a piece of work is the computer that we increasingly stake our lives upon?

It doesn't help matters when governments and service industries decree that we MUST interact with them via cellphone, tablet or laptop, whether we want to or not. It means that common sense, human judgement and discretion, deeper thought and reflection, and long-term planning inevitably take a back seat. And I haven't even gotten started on our right to privacy, for ourselves and our families.

A few examples may be in order here. ArriveCan. Income tax. Cash. Cheques. Rogers outages. Zoom meetings. You get the idea.

Just recently, Alterna Savings changed their website. To continue online banking with them, customers (who supposedly are also members) were asked to input both a cell phone number and an e-mail address so that Alterna could send a 4- or 5-digit code to each destination that the customer/"member" would key in to "prove" they were indeed the "correct" customer/member logging in, rather than an impostor. Only then would the customer get access to their own accounts through online banking. Yes, I did try phoning and getting "help" after a considerable wait-time.

Honestly! What are people supposed to do if they don't even HAVE a cell phone or computer? It's so sad, because I really believe in co-ops where the individual is a member rather than the hapless customer of a Big Bank.

I haven't decided on my future with Alterna yet. I've tried using telephone banking with my main accounts and that still works. I think I can still use ATMs to withdraw cash. There's still one account I have with them that they've threatened to declare dormant and impose fees on. They notified me of that via snail-mail but the letter did not clearly indicate when the dormant status would take effect. Maybe I'll look into other credit unions.

But then there's government, which we just have to live with. I still send in a paper return for my taxes but the actual payments now have to be made through my computer banking. I have to pay a fee every 5 years to renew my Government of Ontario identification card and my Government of Ontario health card. Canada Post no longer delivers to my door. Increasingly, you cannot even use cash to pay for government documents like passports.

Kind of gives the lie to that little statement "This note is legal tender in Canada", don't you think? Frankly I don't care if that $20 bill depicts the late Queen Elizabeth II or the recently inaugurated King Charles III - I just want it to be real and valid!

That's something I'd like to look at as we investigate possible Constitutional reforms!

In Ontario, there is now an optional contact tracing app available for download - for those who happen to have an up-to-date smartphone of the right make and model. The feds have endorsed it and supposedly privacy considerations have been front and centre in the rollout. But even if you have the right stuff, is it a good idea to use it? Does it work? What are the pros and cons? The answers may only emerge as usage becomes more widespread. Meanwhile, here's what various folks at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have to say:

https://ccla.org/contact-tracing-app/

Even though it's optional, will insurance companies, private sector employers and other interested parties start putting enticements into their contracts pressuring clients and employees to download and use it? While it sounds considerably less invasive than some of what's been done with the Internet of Things, I'm still a bit leery of it. Eventually, human rights and civil liberties will no doubt catch up and offer more protection - but "eventually" can be quite a long time compared to the pace of technological developments. The big guy's big step or giant leap forward may be the little guy's collateral damage!

Having said that, my rather jaundiced view of contact tracing is at odds with the direction most of the top brass at CCLA are leaning. And in my case, the point is moot anyway. The cell phone I own is an antique by most people's standards, I only use it to phone people and I plan to hang on to it as long as possible!

The yuppies of Ottawa's university neighbourhoods - The Glebe, Old Ottawa South, Old Ottawa East and Sandy Hill - are all up in arms about the subdividing of single-family homes into multiple dwelling units to serve as rooming houses for students. What gives? These NIMBY whiners were young and poor once themselves. Students undeniably need affordable housing. Is discrimination on the basis of studenthood (or other occupational status) the last bastion of acceptable human rights discrimination in this country?

Discrimination against students is nothing new, of course. I remember looking for a place in London, Ontario, in the mid-1970s and walking past all kinds of prim little notices that read "Students need not apply". The prejudice against students is based, in my opinion, not on any notion that students may default on their rent, but on the erroneous perception that they all want to party 24 hours a day, or at least the 12 hours between 8 PM and 8 AM. Was that EVER true of a majority of students? At any rate, that simply does not gibe with what I see of today's students.

When pre- and early Baby Boomers went off to university in the 1960s, they expected to be (and often were) part of a high-flying career path and high-earning elite once they graduated. But during those post-Sputnik years, it seemed nearly ALL kids who were in elementary or secondary school at the time, regardless of whether it was the best choice for them, aspired to go to university. Or at least, their parents (a majority of whom had not themselves had that opportunity) wanted them to go. I remember my grade eight teacher saying something like this: Virtually ALL the A-stream kids, MOST of the B-stream kids and about HALF the C-stream kids want to go on to university. It's not going to happen!

But to a great extent, he was wrong. Instead, grade and marking inflation took over. Standards were lowered. Streaming and acceleration and province-wide matriculation examinations were abolished. Students were automatically shunted from grade to grade and graduated from high school, regardless of whether they were literate, numerate or had met the expected standards. And almost everyone could find a way into an undergraduate university program of some sort, if willing to pay the fees.

So the baccalaureat became the new high school diploma, a kind of lowest common denominator, as middle and late Baby Boomers and subsequent generations flooded the market. Moreover, tuition fees and housing fees have all risen much faster than the rate of inflation over the past few decades. What's a poor student to do?

Well, get a part-time job, for one thing. Today's students are often working for a lot of the time they're not in class, giving them very little time for wild parties!

A couple of brief asides: First of all, I KNOW things weren't perfect in my young day. Streaming and IQ tests and province-wide exams - all ways of labelling and categorizing children and overencouraging competition and stress at what seemed like a shockingly young age - did have their limitations. But that's a topic for another time. Secondly, I have no doubt that young people today have just as wide an array of talents and intellectual levels as they ever did and many do manage to achieve remarkable things. It's just that this self-esteem business of saying that ALL children have done well, when that's clearly not the case, does nobody any favours. The kids who really are struggling do not get identified early on and given the extra help that they need. The kids who excel are not able to enjoy and understand their achievements or what further ones they may be capable of, when everyone else is being lauded too. And the ones who are somewhere in the middle, as always, get ignored so that they don't achieve their full potential either.

In my ideal vision, there would be many educational possibilities at many stages of our lives. University, at any level, is not for everyone. But for those who HAVE chosen it, for goodness' sake let's give them a break!