s sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets

I recently attended a seminar, the theme of which was basically an investigation of where technology is going and are we likely to keep up with it.

Many things happened, many things were said and ultimately, society -- the perennial injured party in many topical issues of late -- got dragged kicking & screaming into the threaded conversation and was used as a convenient foil for any kind of well-intentioned defense of technology.

So here's my take on things: technology is not evil, nor is it good. Technology is needs-driven and is ultimately the product of a market niche being identified and then filled with one gadget or another to fulfill the needs of that market.

Whether success or failure is the reward for these efforts is another issue all together.

Now, I've no doubt any number of you will fill in the gaps in the above summary of the purpose of technology, but that doesn't matter. I'm not that precious, so if you feel you can fill it out, go for it.

For me, the meat & vegetables of this issue is that of technology being labeled as some kind of socially exclusionary device designed to further fragment our society.

When I hear this kind of thing, it puts me in mind of some James Bond Ubervilain intent on inflicting mass, world-wide misery on each and every one of us. Needless to say, it's nothing like that. Technology in itself does not exclude anyone.

Recently, an article ran through the press calling for the Friends Reunited website to be closed down because of its hand in allegedly causing divorces among its frequent visitors.

That's not how it works. If people choose to re-kindle childhood acquaintances and turn them into something more meaningful, then that's a person issue, not a fault of technology. What if they happened to find each others telephone numbers? Do we then ban telephones?

We all see people sat on trains and buses listening to their personal stereo, or kids disappearing into their bedrooms after school to play on a games console. Is this them being shepherded into isolation by technology?

No!

I recently went to my sisters house to see my nephew. When I entered his room, he was sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets

ltimately the product of a market niche being identified and then filled with one gadget or another to fulfill the needs of that market.

Whether success or failure is the reward for these efforts is another issue all together.

Now, I've no doubt any number of you will fill in the gaps in the above summary of the purpose of technology, but that doesn't matter. I'm not that precious, so if you feel you can fill it out, go for it.

For me, the meat & vegetables of this issue is that of technology being labeled as some kind of socially exclusionary device designed to further fragment our society.

When I hear this kind of thing, it puts me in mind of some James Bond Ubervilain intent on inflicting mass, world-wide misery on each and every one of us. Needless to say, it's nothing like that. Technology in itself does not exclude anyone.

Recently, an article ran through the press calling for the Friends Reunited website to be closed down because of its hand in allegedly causing divorces among its frequent visitors.

That's not how it works. If people choose to re-kindle childhood acquaintances and turn them into something more meaningful, then that's a person issue, not a fault of technology. What if they happened to find each others telephone numbers? Do we then ban telephones?

We all see people sat on trains and buses listening to their personal stereo, or kids disappearing into their bedrooms after school to play on a games console. Is this them being shepherded into isolation by technology?

No!

I recently went to my sisters house to see my nephew. When I entered his room, he was sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets

lly exclusionary device designed to further fragment our society.

When I hear this kind of thing, it puts me in mind of some James Bond Ubervilain intent on inflicting mass, world-wide misery on each and every one of us. Needless to say, it's nothing like that. Technology in itself does not exclude anyone.

Recently, an article ran through the press calling for the Friends Reunited website to be closed down because of its hand in allegedly causing divorces among its frequent visitors.

That's not how it works. If people choose to re-kindle childhood acquaintances and turn them into something more meaningful, then that's a person issue, not a fault of technology. What if they happened to find each others telephone numbers? Do we then ban telephones?

We all see people sat on trains and buses listening to their personal stereo, or kids disappearing into their bedrooms after school to play on a games console. Is this them being shepherded into isolation by technology?

No!

I recently went to my sisters house to see my nephew. When I entered his room, he was sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets

o re-kindle childhood acquaintances and turn them into something more meaningful, then that's a person issue, not a fault of technology. What if they happened to find each others telephone numbers? Do we then ban telephones?

We all see people sat on trains and buses listening to their personal stereo, or kids disappearing into their bedrooms after school to play on a games console. Is this them being shepherded into isolation by technology?

No!

I recently went to my sisters house to see my nephew. When I entered his room, he was sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets

s sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets to buy this stuff.

Technology comes bad only because people choose to do bad things with it, either to themselves or others. But why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious, here?

Virtually everyone knows this, right?