In most cases it is not the technology itself that is the problem, but how
this technology is used. Motivations and objectives of users is much more
than the average. Consider what is called the "digitization" of books: one
can say it has the potential for both good and evil. On the hand, his
supporters can rent that the digitization of old and rare books put them
available to more people than ever before. It is the merit of this view.
Consider the project to provide the Book of Kells, a brightly lit
masterpiece of medieval art. Digital databases are now available a large
number of ancient books to more people than ever. On the surface, this
looks like an unprecedented success; only a fool, supporters say
digitizing, would oppose such progress in knowledge dissemination. Yet we
must always be aware that technology is not or should not be regarded
as- "good" for itself. Unless it is used to serve a good purpose, it can
not be considered a neutral tool. In the wrong hands, it can be an absolute
evil.
Here are some thoughts that come to mind when I recently read an article
about how some universities are abandoning the collection of books for the
digital database completely online. The article tells how the University of
California, Berkeley seeks to "meet the needs of the students of the 21st
century" by gradually reducing physical copies of books. A student
interviewed even said he never checked out a book from the library. Of
course, this change was presented as a step in the right direction, a bold
step into the modern world where everything would be all to hand.
Of course it was. All institutions of time or the authorities are trying to
limit our freedom or access to information, these movements are depicted as
progress "help" us or give us more "freedom." The author of the article
pointed out that most of the best materials are not scanned. Not only that,
but the online database may contain a large amount of information low.
Perhaps the most frightening of all is the fact that converting everything
into a digital format, it is much easier for the authorities to control the
historical data. Article Library Berkeley, supra, made this observation
cooling:
Ignore these older physical media, Dixon argues, is erase the past, until
every scrap of information online. And even then, there are other potential
problems. The removal of 60 percent of the physical collection to the
scientific library of the University of California, Santa Cruz, for
example, caused an uproar after it was reported that most of the removed
books were destroyed. A spokesman for the campus said that nothing has been
lost scientific record, since duplicates were stored in other libraries
available online. Given the short time frame and apparent lack of
consultation of the faculty, however, many critics have expressed doubts
that this was indeed the case.
There is large number of removed books were destroyed. So here we see
another big problem in scanning: the lack of accountability that the
alleged job is done. How can we be sure that these institutions actually
scan the books they claim to be scanning? Who monitoring them? Are we ready
to trust them for this task? I for one am not.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, they do what they say they will do.
Suppose they scan or digitize entire libraries. What is it? Will not this
much, much easier for systems of authority to control or manipulate access
to historical information? How can we be sure that the University of
California will decide one day to prevent access to all the works written
before 1950 as "offensive" or not in keeping with the politically correct?
You may laugh at this, or call me an alarmist, but I'm not so sure. As for
our precious cultural heritage, we can not place our faith in the same
institutions that were even betray legacy for the last forty years.
Seen in this perspective, scanning becomes a stealth technique of
censorship. In the future, power and control systems will not be physically
throwing books in the bonfire; such symbolism would not meet the overlords
of political correctness. But they will try to relegate our heritage from
oblivion in subtler, more devious means. One can imagine a scenario like
this occurs:
1. Libraries and universities announced that they need to "free up more
space" and make the library "more accessible and welcoming" a dumbed-down
population too addicted to smartphones to know or care about anything
whether beyond. As the onslaught of privacy, it will happen in a way that
Empower authorities look like they are trying to help us.
2. Political "leaders" mouth platitudes about the expansion of our "right
to choose" and our "freedom of choice" and to link it to the push to
digitize all the physical books, they can get their hands on. None of the
organizations or independent monitors are in place to see that the books
are properly scanned. Nobody checks to see what is old books once they are
digitized.
3. The "library" is a modern recreation area populated by homeless vagrants
players and young screaming children. (Recall that the Roman Forum in the
classical period was the scene of a political debate, but became in the
Middle Ages a place for grazing cows). The only "books" available on the
shelves are those in line with political correctness. books known oldest to
contain dangerous ideas were "scanned" and are (in theory) can be accessed.
But the fact that they are so raised it is unlikely that we can find them
or use them easily.
4. Guardians of digital databases are now beginning to do the unforgivable:
they begin, subtly falsifying digital databases. The sentences disappear
from books. Pages books disappear. Some books become "illegible" slowly and
surely. Rogue librarians take on themselves to purge or condensed books
they do not like. As the years pass, it becomes increasingly difficult to
find stocks that are considered "trigger" or "bad taste". All this, of
course, is done under the guise of "help" you or makes life "easier" for
you.
5. Guards database is to monitor and restrict access to their data.
Roadblocks are set up to deter applicants knowledge on certain periods of
history. The passwords and other forms of authentication are slowly
introduced to limit access. Your passwords may be revoked at any time, and
therefore your ability to learn can be monitored and removed at any time.
6. Although there is no obvious falsification of data, digital databases
are subject to easy destruction by the elements, fire, electromagnetic
fields, or human error. physical books, however, are much more difficult to
destroy.
If all this seems absurd or far-fetched, think again. Some of the classics
of antiquity survived in some neglected manuscripts. In the case of Tacitus
and Velleius Paterculus historians, there was only one manuscript that has
survived. When people no longer care about the preservation of their
cultural heritage, it will inevitably be overlooked. The monks of the
Middle Ages used to share precious manuscript prayer books because they do
not care about what was written on vellum or parchment. Similarly, some of
the monuments of ancient Rome were cannibalized to build churches. The
point is that someone has to stand guard on knowledge and information and
prevent its destruction by negligence or malice. We were far too willing to
accept the scan physical books without thinking of the inevitable
consequences.
In my opinion, there is no substitute for a physical book. One of the old
books I have is a history of New England published in 1798 in Boston. It
was dedicated to President John Adams. Even after 220 years, it is still in
good condition. The paper used in those days was of high quality, acid-free
rag paper. When holding the light, you can see how strong he is; books
published today just can not compare to the beauty and durability of old
books. After all these years, it has not gone far, and the paper is
yellowed little.
Does anyone trust our digital databases will still be around in 200 years?
We can not even read emails written 20 years ago. We should be very wary of
scanning. I understand that we can not stop the flow of technology; but we
can hold our institutions to account. We must be ready to sound the alarm
when the inevitable attack on the historical record begins. And make no
mistake: the attack happens. In a way, it is already there, as the article
cited above shows. Meanwhile, buy physical books, and admire their beauty.
Read more: The Relentless media censorship BRINGS us a fate worse than Big
Brother
No comments:
Post a Comment