3 ms·
And indeed, the continued existence and use of both the telephone and the postal service demonstrate in an unarguable way that email is not "more efficient" - i
by swombat 16y ago
And indeed, the continued existence and use of both the telephone and the postal service demonstrate in an unarguable way that email is not "more efficient" - it's just different.
Email, telephone and the postal service are three different modes of communication, each of which is useful for a specific category of communication. To that list, I'd add Twitter, IM, IRC, online forums/BBs/newsgroups, social news sites, talking in person, having a meeting, sleeping together, having a fight, having a meal, going out drinking, etc.
Each of those modes of communication is appropriate in a specific set of circumstances for a specific type of communication. None of them is "more efficient" in an absolute sense. It depends on the context.
- fauigerzigerk 16y agoWhich makes me think of a debate that was going on around 1994. It was Gopher versus the World Wide Web. The two are complementary it was said. I think email and traditional letters are not complementary. The overlap is almost 100%. The only thing that keeps the paper letter alive is the lack of ubiquitous and legally binding electronic identity and signature. It's not alive because it is more convenient or a different mode of communication. Package delivery is obviously a very different case because it's not information that is transferred.
- swombat 16y agoLetters are still useful for certain kinds of communication. Romantic love emails just don't cut it, for example. I'll grant you that there is some overlap between email and written letters, though. However, the postal service carries all sorts of things, not just letters.