In many discussions about technology and learning we place a lot of importance on the latest found technologies. Begging an assumption that these technologies should replace earlier ones, and receive a bye as somehow being better in the sense that they are the latest thinking. Yes, some of us feel all progress is advance. Dave Lee, a respondent in Harold’s blog on e-learning technology reminded us that blackboards and erasers are technologies too. Actually, the pencil is a more significant technology than a word processor: Simple, cheap, and an instant hard copy. We are perhaps too impatient in wanting to change the learning scene to fit new technologies which we are certain will improve learning in schools, and we may be dismissing valuable and time-proven technologies. I know the education field is a mess, but we need to remain reasonably objective. In this respect let me comment a bit on some older technologies in a very different context and how the admiration we have for the latest thinking can sometimes fool us in to mistaking newness for better technology. A common conceit in the presentmindedness of our times. The example I give is from Roland Huntford’s book, Scott and Amundsen and examines the 1912 race to the South Pole and the very different aspects of technologies which were used. Robert Falcon Scott, the British Navy Captain and expedition leader was convinced that new technologies, combined with English pluck and hard work were the secrets to a successful South Pole victory. He had nothing but distain for Inuit technologies, especially in their cold weather clothing and referred to the Inuit as “savagesâ€. His answer in the clothing area consisted of tight woven cotton cloth, wool and balaclavas. He believed in manhauling too, seeing the use of dogs and sleds as cheating. At the same time he believed ponies and gasoline tractors would be beneficial. Roald Amundsen, on the other hand, was a great admirer of Inuit technology, and being Norwegian, had perhaps some of this admiration coming from his own proximity to actual arctic weather. John Rae, a Hudson’s Bay surgeon, fur trader and explorer had impressed Amundsen with his knowledge of winter travel in the arctic, and his use of ageless Inuit technologies in clothing and survival. He believed in dogs and fur. The point here is that Scott didn’t consider the Inuit had technologies at all, and perhaps, with that arrogance we often possess, confused the latest with the best. The Amundsen expedition made extensive studies of Inuit clothing and many other aspects of life in low temperatures, and rather easily succeeded while Scott and his team perished, after arriving second at the pole. Ironically, the enormous poignancy of such a miserable death met with such bravery allowed Scott to ultimately win the public relations race, as the taciturn Amundsen possessed none of the poetic polar chutzpah of Scott. What had happened between Scott and Amundsen was really disparate understandings of what technologies were. Scott believing that the latest technologies were necessarily better; Amundsen delving into the historical aspects of Inuit technology with the greatest of respect, and capitalizing on them. Of course, there were other aspects here other than technology. On Scott’s side here was the English stiff upper lip and a sense of the heroic death. A plunging on in pain and misery to a glorious end. On Amundsen’s side there was a methodical examination of the problem and a meticulous preparation for solving it. The study of Inuit clothing and the use of dogs was supplemented with a ruthless paring down of sledge weight, the brazing shut of kerosene tins to prevent evaporation, and even the importance of recreation (Amundsen’s team, after descending from the 11,000 foot glacial plateau on skis, went back up part of it for another ski run). Amundsen’s enterprise sounds much like Harold Stolovitch’s definition of technology as being the application of organized and scientific knowledge to solve practical problems. Of course, the hard question is which technology. In the end, very old technologies won out over what was considered the most leading edge thinking. Nothing wrong with technology. Lots wrong with presentmindness dismissing those technologies which may be more senior.