Supplements and Substitutes

About a month ago, a family riding their ATVs came upon a woman in a van in the remote wilderness of northern Nevada. The woman had been stranded there for seven weeks, rationing her food and drinking muddy water; she was very near death. Her husband had set off on foot to find help a few days after their van had gotten stuck in the mud, and as of this writing, he still has not been found.

Porsche Design P'9611 GPS Navigation SystemThis story is tragic enough, but what is even more heartbreaking is how the couple got stranded in the first place. According to news reports, the couple was not from the area, but were instead attempting to take a scenic route to Las Vegas. Unfamiliar with the local terrain, they had followed the advice of their GPS navigation system, and taken a road that even in good weather would have been unpredictably treacherous. A few miles in, their van became mired in mud and they were unable to turn around.

This story, and others like it, have been causing me to ponder why we seem to put so much faith in these kinds of technological systems. I don’t presume to know the full details of this couple’s ordeal—the reports in the press have so far been too vague—but I wonder why they trusted the advice of their GPS navigation system in such a remote and potentially dangerous area? Why did they continue down what was clearly not a main road when they were unfamiliar with the area, and it was getting close to dark?

As I have been thinking about this, a new distinction has been forming in my mind, a distinction between treating a new artifact or system as a supplement to existing skills, or as a substitute for them. GPS navigation systems are often marketed as if they can completely substitute for more rudimentary navigation and route-choosing skills. But when approached in this way, users might be tempted to wander off into potentially dangerous territory, thinking that their devices will always safely guide them to their destinations. But what happens when the information is out of date, or simply misleading? What happens when the system malfunctions?

When we approach a GPS navigation system as a supplement to existing, hard-won skills, the devices can indeed be quite helpful. My friends have told me stories about how their devices have guided them successfully through unfamiliar cities, but each of them would also override the system’s advice if it started to take them in what seemed like the wrong direction, or through what looked like a dangerous area. Their existing navigational and evaluative skills are still in charge, and the GPS navigation system is acting only as a supplement to them.

This is not to say, however, that we should never let a technology become a complete substitute for existing skills, but we do need to be aware of the costs that come along with letting that happen. Although my furnace and thermostat are a substitute for the skills of building and maintaining an open-hearth fire, I certainly do not think that is a bad thing. There are costs to this substitution—I would have no idea how to fix it if it broke, and thus would need to hire an expert to repair it, and it creates a reliance on fossil fuels, as well as the loss of what Borgmann calls a “focal” thing—but those costs do not outweigh the benefits it provides. In the end, it is a trade-off that I am willing to make.

The trouble, I think, comes when we do not even consider the costs, or put so much faith in the system’s reliability that we think those costs will never occur. We too often accept the claims of marketers without critical evaluation, and fail to consider carefully the trade-offs we are making. Some of those trade-offs are desirable or even necessary, but others are perhaps not. Only through reflection and discussion can we determine which is which.

Is this distinction between supplements and substitutes helpful to you? Can you think of other examples where you have substituted a technology for more rudimentary skills, and do you think that has been a net benefit for you? What other kinds of technologies need to be approached as supplements rather than substitutes?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Supplements and Substitutes

  1. Cheryl Smith

    I hadn’t heard of this story before, but I like your thoughts here on Supplements and Substitution. We have a GPS in our car and rely heavily on it and map apps on our phones when we travel. Before that, we relied heavily on Mapquest and before that? Good old fashioned maps. But lately I’ve been thinking a lot about how to be prepared for the “what ifs.”

    Reply
  2. Marcus Goodyear

    I routinely substitute the speed of online communication for hand written conversations. As a teenager, I was an exchange student to Germany for a year. I did not enjoy having conversations with my parents that had a 4 week feedback loop. Sadly, international calls were too expensive to make more than once a month.

    Today, I am friends with several of my old German friends on Facebook. That is a trade I’ll happily continue to make.

    Reply
  3. Sheila Lagrand

    Speedy communications are an awesome substitute.

    Apart from communications I think I’ve been slow to grant substitute status to new technology. I carry charts (and a compass, which I know how to use) on the boat and maps in the car. We have a GPS on the boat, and use it, but if we lost power or the unit failed we could find ourselves on the chart. We have no GPS in the car, and my phone is a stupid phone, so no GPS App.

    And my grandchildren’s photos? They’re in my wallet.

    I’m a happy dinosaur.

    Reply
  4. Natasha

    Great thoughts! We should definitely be considering the effects of technology in terms of the supplement vs. substitute question you explore. It made me think about how we often think we need a new gadget for everything (think about all the gadgets you find in kitchen stores!) because it will make it “easier” but it actually ends up cluttering our lives up and creating more work – more things to get out, clean, repair, put away etc.

    Reply
  5. Rosie Perera

    I can think of one example where we must trust our technologies instead of our rudimentary navigational skills, and that is when flying “in the muck” on instruments. When you cannot see out the window of the plane because of the thick fog or clouds that you’re in, you absolutely must trust the instruments, particularly the attitude indicator (artificial horizon). Pilots experience disorientation in zero visibility conditions and cannot tell from their bodily sensations which way is up. A fatal mistake could be made if you rely on your bodily senses over against what the instruments are telling you when trying to keep the plane straight and level. You might think you’re correcting for a bank to the right, but you’re actually sending the plane into a left bank and could ultimately end up in a graveyard spiral.

    Reply
  6. Pingback: Emotional Telecommunications | tech.soul.culture

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s