Ageing and its Relevance To Infrastructure

Ageing and its Relevance To Infrastructure

Words by Dirk Calloway

When we're born, we're dependent on assistance from older members of our species. Humans take some 15-20 or so years to fully mature. During this period, parents are meant to look after their young by providing a few basics: shelter, protection, nutrition and nurturing. Combine those four elements and there's a good chance your baby will survive and eventually become a healthy teenager.

Compared to the steady pace of childhood, the teenage years are an altogether different cup of tea. Mostly because, for a distinct and marked period of a few short years, everything changes. The Before and After photos sometimes don't even look like the same person. 

Then there's adulthood itself. Retaining the general ideas presented in the teenage years, but cementing certain key characteristics in place and ditching others. An extended period of pronounced stability is embarked upon. The fully grown person takes on a structure, emotionally and physically, that does not change in a massive way for many decades. During this time, the search for a mate begins and offspring arrive shortly afterwards. The young 'uns are essentially clones of the old 'uns, but new and improved. There's more room for genetic variation and most parents aim for their kids to be better, or at least have a better life, than themselves.

Generation 2.0 is usually better informed, hopefully wiser as a result, and definitely should be better looking than Generation 1.0. In the meantime, Generation 1.0 gets older, less efficient, erratic, and begins to lose its ability to function. Give it a few decades and 1.0 doesn't just need to retire, it needs to be put to rest, permanently.

And now, my point. We need to consider infrastructure - roads, power lines for trains, telephone networks - in the same way that we do ourselves. 

New infrastructure, generally speaking, is similar to a baby because its designers need to coax it through its first few years on this planet. The smallest hiccup can become a massive ordeal, requiring manual assistance. Around the clock support is standard for babies, just as it is for new infrastructure projects. In the country I live, we are witnessing such a period on a high-visibility mobile phone network. It's hard to watch the teething problems, but it's harder to listen to the screams every time something goes wrong. 

Teenage infrastructure is much more interesting. This is where new features get added, sometimes emphasising change over the original priorities. In most cases, this change is well-meaning, but change in and of itself doesn't, erm, keep the trains running on time. A recent, local, example emphasises that point perfectly. The existing railway system carries passengers from Point A to Point B. The system needs expanding, and to do so requires new trains. The old units don't work on the new tracks and the new units don't work on the old tracks. As a result, more tracks are needed, as well as differing power line heights, etc. You get the picture. Everyone agrees that change is needed. Problem is, the change process has been interrupting passengers' commute. Whenever a single passenger is interrupted, the reason for the system's existence is defeated: remember, it merely ensures that passengers move from Point A to Point B. This period of upheaval is a classic example of 'teenage' infrastructure.

Elderly infrastructure though, the sort where car factories begin to let things slip, and where management start valuing sales over safety... well, that's when you cross your fingers and hope Generation 2.0 is able to improve on Generation 1.0's performance.

Hopefully this analogy has been useful. Next time you read something about a massive failure on the half of a large corporate, consider which stage of their lifecycle they're in. Are you watching a company's slow and painful demise? Or are you watching their first few tentative steps into the world? Consider this before slamming them.