"The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency s
o that everyone has more leisure time."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. Pr
oductivity software helps us plan and coordinate projects; intranets, the Internet, and sa
tellite technology make us more efficient messengers; and technology even helps us prepare
our food and access entertainment more efficiently. Beyond this concession, however, I fi
nd 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 adva
ncement comes diminished leisure time. In 1960 the average U.S. family included only one b
readwinner, who worked just over 40 hours per week. Since then the average work week has i
ncreased steadily to nearly 60 hours today; and in most families there are now two breadwi
nners. What explains this decline in leisure despite increasing efficiency that new techno
logies have brought about? I contend that technology itself is the culprit behind the decl
ine. 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 adva
nces 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 t
oday. Moreover, every technological advance demands our time and attention in order to lea
rn how to use the new technology. Time devoted to keeping pace with technology depletes ti
me for leisure activities.I disagree with the speaker for another reason as well: the sugg
estion 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 f
or safer, less invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics can help prevent bir
th 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 o
bjectives of technology. Admittedly, advances in these areas sometimes involve improved ef
ficiency; yet efficiency is merely a means to these more important ends.In sum, I find ind
efensible 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 overwhelm
ing 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.