> I also don't believe that just because some technology exists, people should adapt to it.
It doesn't matter what you believe. History has shown us that technology wins every time. Fighting against it is a losing battle. Better to embrace and find new markets than hang onto dying ones, I say.
>It doesn't matter what you believe. History has shown us that technology wins every time. Fighting against it is a losing battle.
Not really. That's totally fatalist and unworthy of a civilized society. It's a regression to pre-democratic and superstitious eras.
Of course that's an value judgement (an ethical statement). So, the question remains, is what you said true in a pragmatic sense, ie. a historical inevitability?
I say no. We have examples of civilizations that had advanced technology or techniques (that could have been used for lots of stuff), but opted to not deploy it or futher pursue it. The main reason a lot of technology was adopted was because other nations used it and had a war/economic advantage over yours.
We also have examples of technology that was superior but people opted not to adopt, from Betamax to Lisp machines. Smalltalk over Java. (Of course you can argue that it didn't won for economic/business reasons. Well, isn't that a statement in favor of technology not being enough to win in itself?)
(Plus, if we constrain the "technology wins every time" to only consider technology that actually won, then we're just making a tautological statement).
It might be fatalist but it's certainly not regressive, undemocratic, or superstitious. It's merely observational. Technology changes markets.
Beta vs VHS isn't interesting or even relevant. Your other examples are also too microscopic. The VCR itself, though, changed the markets immensely! It created the whole new market of home viewing and without it we wouldn't have time shifting (leading to DVRs) or Blockbuster (leading to Netflix). Then when the technology moved on (streaming and DVDs), those same markets died (Blockbuster, again).
If a market can't adapt to new technology, it deserves to die—we shouldn't be curbing new technology just to prop up outdated markets.
If this includes the gaming market, so be it. Something new/better will rise up in its place (games will never go away at this point). I actually don't see this as fatalistic—I find these changes exciting. Humans are inventive and I love to see what we come up with next.
It doesn't matter what you believe. History has shown us that technology wins every time. Fighting against it is a losing battle. Better to embrace and find new markets than hang onto dying ones, I say.