![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
On a forum I was reading, somebody complained about how "how could their earliest records only be three thousand years old? it's not like they're working with papyrus and stone!"
Except... let's look at this. Let's assume that all their records were on computers (we know this isn't the case, but I'll get to that later). Are computers really a more durable and reliable way of keeping records than stone and paper are?
I don't think so.
Computers are prone to failure. They can have their memories wiped, with no easy way to see what was on there before. I mean, really. Do we *honestly* think that anything on our computers will last 3,000 years?
More than that, computers are prone to people deliberately erasing information they find... disturbing. Let's say I wanted to destroy every newspaper article that refered to Bush, and I had the power to attempt this. I'd have to first find the newspapers (and hope that nobody is hiding a copy somewhere), and burn them. Or bury them. And I'd have to also find Xeroxes of the newspapers, and microfiches, and handwritten notes on the subject of the newspapers... wow. A lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of manpower, and all it takes is me missing just one, and people can just copy that one article over and over again.
Let's say all my information is on a computer, and I want to destroy information on Bush. It's not nearly as labor-intensive to release a computer virus (and everybody is hooked up to the internet nowadays) which will destroy these records. More to the point, I can be subtle. Instead of destroying articles, I can change them. Can you imagine doing this with stone and paper?
Of course, there's no proof that this happened in the past. However, after a certain amount of time, the idea that it could happen would make information untrustworthy. Heck, look at things today. Much of what's on the internet can't be trusted, and none of it is particularily old - it's just... people spread misinformation around, and faster with the internet. Through a different mechanism than the one I mentioned. Not enough virii getting rid of wrongful information.
And there's another problem. People don't save everything. If they consider something "common knowledge", and decide they need a little more space for something that's more interesting, they might delete it. This isn't malicious, just careless.
The reason people settled on in the thread is that the Colonial society has been in a period of decline, so they're losing a lot of their ability to read older information. I can buy this as well, but I like my explanation better, flawed though it no doubt is.
Except... let's look at this. Let's assume that all their records were on computers (we know this isn't the case, but I'll get to that later). Are computers really a more durable and reliable way of keeping records than stone and paper are?
I don't think so.
Computers are prone to failure. They can have their memories wiped, with no easy way to see what was on there before. I mean, really. Do we *honestly* think that anything on our computers will last 3,000 years?
More than that, computers are prone to people deliberately erasing information they find... disturbing. Let's say I wanted to destroy every newspaper article that refered to Bush, and I had the power to attempt this. I'd have to first find the newspapers (and hope that nobody is hiding a copy somewhere), and burn them. Or bury them. And I'd have to also find Xeroxes of the newspapers, and microfiches, and handwritten notes on the subject of the newspapers... wow. A lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of manpower, and all it takes is me missing just one, and people can just copy that one article over and over again.
Let's say all my information is on a computer, and I want to destroy information on Bush. It's not nearly as labor-intensive to release a computer virus (and everybody is hooked up to the internet nowadays) which will destroy these records. More to the point, I can be subtle. Instead of destroying articles, I can change them. Can you imagine doing this with stone and paper?
Of course, there's no proof that this happened in the past. However, after a certain amount of time, the idea that it could happen would make information untrustworthy. Heck, look at things today. Much of what's on the internet can't be trusted, and none of it is particularily old - it's just... people spread misinformation around, and faster with the internet. Through a different mechanism than the one I mentioned. Not enough virii getting rid of wrongful information.
And there's another problem. People don't save everything. If they consider something "common knowledge", and decide they need a little more space for something that's more interesting, they might delete it. This isn't malicious, just careless.
The reason people settled on in the thread is that the Colonial society has been in a period of decline, so they're losing a lot of their ability to read older information. I can buy this as well, but I like my explanation better, flawed though it no doubt is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:18 pm (UTC)Name of actor, name of actor... Hm... I'll get back to you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:18 pm (UTC)Name of actor, name of actor... Hm... I'll get back to you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 08:24 pm (UTC)