Gadgets vs. Frugality

One of the difficulties I've had lately is reconciling frugality with technological progress. For example, I'm considering getting rid of my refrigerator. In doing so, I would be giving up a modern convenience, almost going back to the stone age. Does that mean that I hate human progress?

You can see this with the iPhone discussions, which has taken a lot of criticism on the blogs over the past couple of weeks. You read the comments and a lot of people are not questioning the expense of such a thing but more the need for it. But, I bet within 5 years you won't be able to purchase a cell phone which is less power than the iPhone 3G is, and everybody will wonder how they ever survived without one.

You also see a lot harkening for traditional, low-tech ways, people trying to go live in a log cabin, and do everything the old-fashioned way - to save money. But I wonder how much of this actually is economical. I remember I was in a certain part of southern Kenya and the men (who all dressed in very distinctive traditional clothes) all carried machetes on them. I asked one man who I met to see his and emblazoned across the blade were the words "MADE IN CHINA". These are people who build their houses (literally, huts made of mud & sticks), grow all of their own food, raise their animals, have no running water or electricity, but for something which they could not make as economically they purchased it from a factory.

I think there is a temptation blanketly reject all technology as being too expensive and unnecessary. But let me suggest that there are two categories of technology: those which are affordable on a mass scale and vastly improve quality of life, and those which are luxuries which only the world's wealthiest.

The classic example of an affordable technology is the cell phone. Now, 3.3 billion people - or 50% of humans - use a cell phones. Places which never got landline phones (because they were too expensive) now have cell phones. The classic example of a luxury is an automobile, which are very expensive.

It is fascinating for me to see how people in third world countries use technology. The fact that people with very tight budgets opt to go for a technology is a good indicator that not only is the technology worth it economically, but also that it is sustainable technology. I remember was I when in Guatemala, and I took the bus all over the country. Guatemala is a very traditional country - you see plenty of people who don't speak Spanish, but instead the indigenous languages. The cell-phone is ubiquitous there, and another interesting thing which is ubiquitous are MP3 CD's. Nobody has cars, but they have plenty of transportation, all buses which are discarded school buses from America. All of these things are integrated into the fabric of their society.

The best technologies are the ones which actually save you money. The computer for me is that technology and saves me an extraordinary amount of money as I move more and more of life to it. The computer is changing mankind rapidly, and the computer is enabling me to do things with my life which wouldn't have been possible before its rise. 25 years ago, computers were very expensive - the original IBM PC cost $5,000 - in 1981 dollars. It would have been shame, though, if frugal people back then wrote it off as an unnecessary extravagance, and never were able to take advantage of technology.

I'm afraid of doing that. I want to avoid jumping to judgment and instead carefully evaluate new technologies as they come after carefully considering their scalability and sustainability. Some gadgets are good and will usher increased human efficiency, others are just play toys of the world's uber-rich. It is important, but difficult, to distinguish between the two.