(Insert Creative Title Here)

There is much, I repeat much, to be said about old technology. That was especially true back when today's 'old' technology was new. However, it becomes less and less important to talk about old technology as time goes on. I am going to argue against the idea that talking about what used to be is inherently valuable, and rather that in many instances such dialogue is a waste of all our time.

Take for example airplane fuel. Today we use highly advanced jet fuel that allows for proper combustion even under extremely high pressure in the extreme upper limits of the atmosphere. Phenomenal! 82 years ago, Thomas Midgley filed a patent that explained how he had improved upon existing aeromotive fuel and effectively reduced required compression. The application for the patent of said knowledge is below. This patent was important to the expansion of aeromotive use, and set a long precedent of aeromotive fuel improvement. However, when scientists today look to improve aeromotive fuel they do not study the fuel produced by Midgley. They look at what is currently used, and perhaps what was used just previously to that, but they don't go all the way back to the beginning. Why is that you ask? Fascinating question.

The reason that they don't go back to the beginning is because they don't need to! Aeromotive fuel of the day was important to the day, but today carries little relevance. The same is true of technology aided communication. The telegraph used to be important, but is no longer so. We have moved past telegraph and onto something remarkably better and more sophisticated. Likewise, society has moved on from feeling as though radio is 'noise(s) that roar(s) in space'. Instead of an aire of 'non-secrecy' as Covert puts it, society today communicates wirelessly without a fear of such things. (Although perhaps there should be more fear of non-secrecy, given the status of privacy concerns.)

There were a few nuggets of interest scattered about the generally mundane selections, most notableably for me the concept of communication being separated for the first time with transportation, as addressed and discussed in the Carey article. However, overall were the readings valuable to me as an individual? Not particularly. Were they valuable to the class, or society, as a whole? Probably not. So although I understand the conceptual relevance of talking about and studying 'old technology', I just don't see a practical application of such conversation.

I don't argue against talking about the direct affects that yesterday's technology has on us today, but I readily argue against talking about the effects that technology had on people in the relatively distant past. Do you disagree? Good, someone always should.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=UdxBAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=airplane