Whenever a new technology comes to the fore, for some reason, it is always met with cynicism. A wise man once said that any new idea that doesn't sound absurd to begin with, cannot be revolutionary. I don't know if the two things are related, or whether it's some deliberate attempt to prove the wise man right, but I find it quite annoying to see people being narrow-minded and overly defensive about the very things that are meant to make their lives a lot simpler.

To cite a recent example, the International Cricket Council (ICC) announced that they would try empowering umpires with technology for adjudicating close calls, on an experimental basis. Under the new regulations, players can appeal against a call if they think it's unfair, thus forcing the umpires to resort to technology. For reasons beyond logic, there was a big hue and cry from various quarters, including former umpires, about why this is a terrible move and how this will dilute the umpire's authority over the game. Some even went to the extent of suggesting that on-field umpires be replaced with robots - some overdose of sarcasm that. I say, what's wrong in the move? Agreed, the technology isn't perfect yet, at least not for all decisions. Moreover, the process could be a little time consuming. But who's talking about replacing the umpires? It is just about allowing them to make use of technology that's already available for viewers across the world. It will take the pressure off them and, for all you know, might save them from being booed by some million viewers and the media. And in this super-competitive age, it may also save a career or two. At the end of the day, people pay to watch the cricketers playing the game, not umpires exhibiting their skill.

Though I am a technology lover, I am not one for its overuse either. Just because a certain technology exists doesn't mean one has to use it. For instance, GPS, I know a lot of people trying to make use of it, in spite of knowing the way and getting lost in the process. But when there is available technology, it's a good idea to keep the option open. There has to be a good balance and the idea is to make optimum use of it without your IQ level falling.

This reminds me of an argument I had a few years ago during my statistics exam in degree college, when the supervisor refused to let me use a calculator. I completely agree with calculators not being allowed in school, where one is learning the mathematical process. But disallowing it in degree college is totally absurd. What were they trying to judge - my raw mathematical prowess or my understanding of statistics?

All said and done, I believe a lot of people fear losing their job or position to a machine and hence the opposition. Yes, computerization can lead to reduced manpower requirements, and even unemployment, but that is not the debate I am looking to start here. My gripe is against those who try to treat a "Man and Machine" scenario like a "Man versus Machine" situation. If someone can't make use of available technology to get more efficient, then maybe he or she doesn't deserve to be in the position in the first place.