Harold Winslow

High Tech, Low Tech

As a species, our most basic needs haven't changed since venturing out of the African Savannah, and they are not likely to change anytime soon. Naturally people developed ways to satisfy these needs very early on to a reasonable degree. And yet people continue to work on improvements across a number of categories. Very simple items like cups and chairs just continue to get better over time. Imagine what amazing socks we'll have a millenia hence!

When people compare welfare or GDP across time, they point out that over sufficiently long periods the comparison starts to get fuzzy because it's very difficult to measure the value of products and services in the later period that weren't available in the earlier one. This generally brings to mind innovations like the iPhone. And while I like my iPhone, I realize from writing this post that many of the tools I use each day were made with much older technology. Most of my shirts are cotton, but I could be wearing Merino wool/nylon blend shirts which are just as soft but also handle sweat and moisture better without requiring as much laundering. I sit in hand-me-down chairs with no particular attention to ergonomics when I could be sitting in a chair specifically designed to promote good posture. I walk around the city at night with only my fists as protection when I could be carrying non-lethal but highly effective pepper spray.

It occurs to me that investing in the highest-tech versions of items in these areas of fundamental human need might provide me much more satisfaction than investing in the latest electronic device. It's also notable that people routinely use relatively old technology to satisfy their mundane needs but demand the latest technology when pursuing sport or entertainment. Apple would have us believe that the latest phone is indispensable. There is some truth to this - after several years your phone will become too slow and have too little memory to continue using. How much of this dynamic can we attribute to diminishing marginal returns? Perhaps the rate of improvement in iPhones is very high right now because they are still quite new, while the benefit of the latest cutlery technology is of little import to the average person because the technology reached adequacy hundreds of years ago.

On the other hand, one major motivator for investing in new shiny things is to show off. And showing off only works if other people can readily tell that you've made the investment. Your use of the latest phone or gaming console may be relatively easy to telegraph; your use of our most sophisticated soaps - not so much.

In summary: there is continued demand for improvements on our staple technologies even after thousands of years of tinkering. Investing in the highest-tech versions of these products might bring one considerable joy, but people rarely do that. Part of the reason for the low adoption rate is probably the low marginal rate of improvement for old technologies, but much of it may come down to status signaling. For fun, here is a short list of relatively recent advancements fulfilling old needs - high tech low tech.