There is no doubt that distance-bridging technologies are changing the way the world connects and interacts. Increased communication between people and the building of networks creates endless opportunities for global expansion and advancement. In Frances Cairncross's article, "The Trendspotter's Guide to New Communications", she outlines the different ways in which the "death of distance" is shaping the global and social economies (Cairncross 7). However, the list of 30 reasons how technology will change the world for the better is an extremely optimistic and idealistic compilation of supposed facts. All of the reasons imply a technologically deterministic outlook on communication: the technologies that have helped to conquer distance seem to provide a solution to all social and economic problems that have arisen throughout history. Although technology certainly creates more opportunities for communication throughout the world, to say that it is the answer to all of life’s problems is ignoring the important and unique social dynamic that the use of that technology brings.

For example, number 17 states that "...third world countries will have access to knowledge that the industrial world has long enjoyed" (Cairncross 8). This statement does not acknowledge the extreme social problems that most third world countries are facing that inhibit their use of widely used communication technologies, such as famine, drought, and unstable political structures. Another problem that is overlooked in this generalization is the reliance on the Western world by third world countries for the majority of their information. The communicated information is mainly coming from countries such as Canada, the United States and Britain. This severely limits the perspective and viewpoint of the information being communicated, as most of it will be written with Western ideals and values in mind. The reason for this comes down to the power and capitalistic prospects that communication technologies have, and their value to those in the West. While in an ideal world the “remotest corners of the world” would have equal say in the information that is meant to educate and shape well-rounded opinions, the social and economic conditions of the third world do not allow them to be subjected to anything but Western views of important issues (Cairncross 8). Although the intent of this statement is to emphasise the distance-conquering properties of new communication technologies, to generalize the effects of a technology on a geographic location is to overlook the social and political limits of that society.

Another problematic statement is number 28 which says, “Electronic mail will induce young people to express themselves effectively in writing and to admire clear and lively written prose” (Cairncross 9). By implying that electronic mail is an exact substitute for a pen and paper in academic situations is ignoring the reasons why people choose to write e-mails rather than letters. The advent of e-mail not only puts an end to the long distance that letters had to travel to get to the recipient, it also serves as a faster and more efficient means of communication. In this sense, e-mail can be seen as the denigrator of educational writing, as its main purpose is to get directly to the point as efficiently and quickly as possible. While historically the elegance and complexity of diction was seen as a distinguishing mark of education, in the age of e-mail, the shorter and more concise the words are, the more impact they appear to have. Crispin Thurlow agrees in his article “Generation Txt? The Sociolinguistics of Young People’s Text-messaging” that new communications such as e-mail and text messaging are “…completely individual ways[s] to express yourself” (Thurlow 1). However, the claim that young people will indulge in the use of clear and effective writing seems to be contrary to the popular trend called texting: “As a dialect, text ('textese'?) is thin and unimaginative. It is bleak, bald, sad shorthand. Drab shrinktalk. The dialect has a few hieroglyphs (codes comprehensible only to initiates) and a range of face symbols. … Linguistically it's all pig's ear. … Texting is penmanship for illiterates” (Thurlow 1). It seems that instead of becoming more clear and concise writers, young people have adapted a new language that is both confusing and isolating, as it relies on a premeditated set of rules and knowledge of the language in order to understand. Ideally, an electronic interface for writing would do nothing to the actual content or style of writing other than communicating the information over a greater distance. However, when predicting the use of a technology out of social context, it is impossible to foresee how the technology will actually be used.

New communication technologies often have predicted outcomes that are overly optimistic. Although it is very important to observe the many opportunities that these new technologies will create, and to acknowledge their positive impact on certain aspects of social and economic communication, it is also important to consider the social variables that are involved. When disconnecting the technology from the free-thinking people that are using them, there becomes the danger of providing a misleading outlook as to how the technology will impact society.

Works Cited
Cairncross, Francis. “The Trendspotter’s Guide to new Communications.” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 7-9.

Thurlow, Crispin. “Generation Txt? The Sociolinguistics of Young People’s Text-Messaging.” .