The speaker contends that technology's primary goal should be to increase our efficiency for
the purpose of affording us more leisure time. I concede that technology has enhanced our
efficiency as we go about our everyday lives. Productivity software helps us plan and coordinate
projects; intranets, the Internet, and satellite technology make us more efficient messengers;
and technology even helps us prepare our food and access entertainment more efficiently. Beyond
this concession, however, I find the speaker's contention indefensible from both an empirical
and a normative standpoint.
The chief reason for my disagreement lies in the empirical proof: with technological advancement
comes diminished leisure time. In 1960 the average U.S. family included only one breadwinner, who
worked just over 40 hours per week. Since then the average work week has increased steadily to
nearly 60 hours today; and in most families there are now two breadwinners. What explains this
decline in leisure despite increasing efficiency that new technologies have brought about? I
contend that technology itself is the culprit behind the decline. We use the additional free time
that technology affords us not for leisure but rather for work. As computer technology enables
greater and greater office productivity it also raises our employers' expectations-or demands-
for production. Further technological advances breed still greater efficiency and, in turn,
expectations. Our spiraling work load is only exacerbated by the competitive business environment
in which nearly all of us work today. Moreover, every technological advance demands our time
and attention in order to learn how to use the new technology. Time devoted to keeping pace
with technology depletes time for leisure activities.
I disagree with the speaker for another reason as well: the suggestion that technology's chief
goal should be to facilitate leisure is simply wrongheaded. There are far more vital concerns
that technology can and should address. Advances in bio-technology can help cure and prevent
diseases; advances in medical technology can allow for safer, less invasive diagnosis and
treatment; advances in genetics can help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and
chemistry can improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges and vehicles;
information technology enables education while communication technology facilitates global
participation in the democratic process. In short, health, safety, education, and freedom
-and not leisure-are the proper final objectives of technology. Admittedly, advances in these
areas sometimes involve improved efficiency; yet efficiency is merely a means to these more
important ends.
In sum, I find indefensible the speaker's suggestion that technology's value lies chiefly in
the efficiency and resulting leisure time it can afford us. The suggestion runs contrary to
the overwhelming evidence that technology diminishes leisure time, and it wrongly places
leisure ahead of goals such as health, safety, education, and freedom as technology's
ultimate aims.