This is not a post on which is better technology. That is something that can be discussed and debated with no end. This is just a thought-piece on what our perception is on new technology. Does “new” automatically make us think it is better?
An absurd story, with a purpose. Just to examine our perception
The view on another planet:
On a distant planet, somewhere in a parallel universe…
Somewhere on another planet, diabetics had to test their alien pee to know what their alien blood sugar was. It wasn’t a very good test. It was 2-4 hours behind what their actual blood sugar was. And it wasn’t very accurate - just a blue, green, or orange color to tell them if they were low, medium, or high. But it was all they had, so they used it.
Decades later, a new technology was invented. It was referred to as IBM - Interstitial Blood Monitoring. It was a good improvement but it wasn’t perfect. It wouldn’t tell them their actual current blood glucose level, it was about 20-30 minutes behind. But a 20 minute lag time was better than the 2-4 hour lag of urine testing. The IBM wasn’t always very accurate, occasionally the readings were way off. They had to calibrate it twice a day. And they also had to wear a piece of hardware stuck to their body so they could get the IBM readings. But the aliens really liked the pretty graphs it made.
Then, a few decades later, the latest technology came out for the diabetic aliens. It was tremendous. It was a new way of checking their blood sugar. They called it an AG meter which stood for Alien Glucose. They were able to get their AG values instantly. No 20-30 minute lag time. And they didn’t have to have a piece of hardware stuck to them! It also required no calibration. And as long as they had a good AG meter and had clean alien appendages (alien fingers), their readings were fairly reliable. They loved this latest technology. No hardware stuck to their body! No delay! No calibration! And accurate results! It didn’t have pretty graphs, and they had to wake up to check their AG, and had to poke their fingers, but that didn’t matter to the aliens.
Is this a foolish story? Maybe.
But how much of what we consider “better” is simply because it is “new”.
If somebody knew nothing about iPhones, and you showed them an iPhone 4 and an iPhone 6, and asked them which is the newer one, is it possible they might think the much smaller one (the iPhone 4) was a huge advance over the bigger one?
If somebody knew nothing about CGM and BG testing, and you wrote an accurate and detailed description of them both, which would they say is better?
Personally, I think having both CGM and BG testing together will always be better than having only one by itself.
The point of this is not to debate which is better. I just want to bring this up for discussion. Are we just conditioned to think new stuff is better?
I don’t think new is necessarily always better.
Our friends, the aliens on a distant planet, have a different perspective than us.
Why? Is it because the AG meter came after IBM instead of before? Are the aliens wrong? Are we wrong?
Again for emphasis:
The point of this is not to debate which is better. I just want to bring this up for discussion. Are we just conditioned to think new stuff is better?