Eat, Sleep, Work, Consume, Die (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Holadem, a few questions:
It is certainly not a requirement, but can you seriously say that it isn't even desirable? You would have all of your communications be devoid of any social benefit? What happens if an entire generation views things that way? I know the saying ignorance is bliss, but that attitude is a bit extreme and potentially dangerous to society as a whole.

[Hoping not to delve into forbidden HTF territory here, please let us not get into specifics of politics]:
The problem is that technology is changing the way people interact in several ways. It is nearly impossible to have societal-impacting conversations in an e-fashion. Have you ever talked politics over your Blackberry, AIM or the Internet? Even over the phone is difficult, because that kind of touchy discussion is usually best face-to-face. This very forum forbids it (for very good reasons). And yet political awareness and discussion is the key for the continued survival of any society. But this generation is less and less aware, less introspective, less analytical and critical [and this can mean not just criticism, but support as well] of the whole political arena. Most people today, and especially kids, are blissfully ignorant of what is going on in the political world.

Yes, face-to-face contact is becoming less common (as Robert has even questioned "what's the big deal"?). And thus important, critical, self-analyzing [of the self and of the society they inhabit] discussions are happening less and less by the Generation of the Future. Even face-to-face discussions have been affected by the e-world and our kids' discussions are mirroring their AIM exchanges.

I can see this firsthand working at a top US university. I'm only 31 so I'm not even that far removed from these kids' ages. I have had the chance to view the changes year in and year out and it is quite something to behold. I am thinking of seeking out people in the psych and anthro departments to see if anyone is interested in [or is already] writing a paper or thesis on it.

 

[DaveF]

Yep.

My concern is that we can no longer know everything. I believe we have much more information now than ever before. It is much less reasonable for a person to have expertise in all facets of science and arts. This limits our ability to understand the new choices we face from new technologies. Without understanding, it's more challenging to develop a sophisticated moral framework in which to decide when and how, or even if, to employ our technology.

And so stem cell research, genetic testing, wiretaps, public access to your life's history, etc. are new abilities. And we have a tough time understanding these and extending our moral guidelines to properly know how to handle them.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

The problem of modern life is that we have not yet defined it. I don't believe in what Clifford Simak articulated in some of his more depressing stories, that industrial civilisation is foreign to human nature and thus inevitable contains the seeds of its own destruction. Man is the Builder, and cities are as natural to him as dams to beavers.

Unfortunately, there has been no attempt to form an integrated way of life which includes all these new inventions. Instead, we have just added new things while continuing to live in old patterns, which has led to distorted lifestyles. For instance, the automobile made it possible to go a hundred miles, in any direction, every day; and the end result of this new "freedom" is that many Americans find themselves having to do so!
Industrial production would make it possible for everyone to enjoy a very high standard of living with much less work than they now perform, but because the people who have the most influence over the economic system don't understand or can't accept its implications, workers simply get shifted more and more from productive to nonproductive tasks. The ten-hour workweek is not a pipe dream, but it would require such a reorganisation of the way things work that most people would be unable to adjust.

If we can get through the next couple of hundred years without a mojor catastrophe, the bugs will shake out and society will settle into a more sane, stable pattern. It's nothing new, the same thing has happened many times before, such as at the introduction of agriculture. Life in the meanwhile is going to be pretty bad for a lot of people, though.

 

[RobertR]

I think your implicit assumption that such discussions don't take place electronically is based on limited anecdotal information. I think there's PLENTY of political discussion going on. The inhabitants of the blogosphere would be very surprised to hear that their discussions don't take place, or that they're inconsequential (the last election proved otherwise). If "this generation" is less aware, more apathetic about politics, less introspective, less analytical, etc. it is not the fault of technology (the same criticisms of the Internet could be and probably were leveled against the telephone or the printing press). For those who are politically active, the advent of these technologies is a fantastic opportunity for contact, shared ideas, and the spread of information.

 

[Holadem]

Carlos,

- "technological progress == decline in the quality and frequency of genuine human interraction" idea is nothing new. Hence the "tired" comment.

- I would have welcomed a new spin on it, something I haven't heard before, something more convincing than that article. I wouldn't have given the article second thought, and find the reactions in this thread far more interesting. The social benefits to mundane cell phone conversations certainly is a new (and puzzling) angle in the issue, hence my interest.

You've subtly shifted the scope of the argument. All my communications? No. Personal? I don't care! I find social benefits completely irrelevant to the situation described. The connection between the two has yet to be established in this thread.

To use a Mark Hastings' style example, it's like opening your fridge and wondering why there is no severed head in it.

--
H

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Like abortion and slavery, this issue has many sides to it (I keed, I keed!).

Example 1: The shaving razor. First developed in the bronze age, and then existed unchanged for about 2300 years in its iron form, the straight/shaving razor was a marvel of technology. It worked well with minimal skill, doubled as a utility/defense knife in a pinch, was a cheap investment and a good one would last the rest of your life. Then in the 20th century we got the "saftey razor", which was just as dangerous but sounded nicer. and then @1970 we came upon the great downfall of hygiene: the disposable razor. Now instead of one good carbon-steel blade, you got one or more duller stainless steel blades. And despite SS's amazing rust resistant properties, the device was only good for a week or so before it was thrown out. So now technology actually made life worse in 2 ways; A. what was once a $2 gift at age 14 has become a lifelong neccessity that must be purchased over, and over, and over, and over. Then B: If everybody on the planet uses 5000 plastic razors in their life, how many millions of tons of unrecycleable landfill does that create every 20 years?

2. Medicine. Crazy new-age herbology supporters aside, I can't think of any valid reason why the progress of medice would be seen as a bad idea. Heart surgery, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy, X-rays, yadda yadda yadda

So is technology bad? Maybe, it all depends on how you apply it. But in general, technology has done more good in the last 200 years for humans than government or religion has done in the last 3000.


Because unemployed homeless people with no medical insurance get all the chicks in the soup kitchen.

 

[Carlo_M]

Robert, you are using one example to dispel an entire trend, and in itself is anecdotal (as you clearly read those bloggers).

And a lot of blogging is more like getting on a soapbox and stating your opinion as fact, whereas true dialogue involves at least a two-sided discussion in real time (not a "I post" then "you post" then "I post" etc.).

And when you look at sheer numbers, which do you think accounts for more communication transactions: blogs, or people who email, IM, post on bulletin boards and text message?

So yes, some critical discussion may exist in an e-format, but certainly not a high percentage of it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Create a vPod that can hold 900 movies and we'll talk. At least I've watched most of the films in my collection, either on DVD/LD or at the theater. I treat my personal collection as a reference library for films primarily, not as a portable entertainment resource like high capacity iPod owners do with their iPods.

----------

Just to bring the abuse of technology home, a show of restraint when it comes to using cell phone technology inside movie theaters would be welcomed for the benefit of theater patrons (since there are those inconsiderate people who leave their cell phone ringers on during a movie, and even engage in conversations inside the theater - that's a social disservice). Obviously, manners seem to be in short supply by those who abuse their toys in the presence of others. That's the social disconnect. That's the insular "me me me" attitude that crops up on a regular basis.

I'm for using common sense when it comes to using new technology. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should in excess of common sense. Just because you can watch a UMD movie on your PSP during dinner with your family, it doesn't mean you should.

Just because you can talk on a cell phone while driving, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Was that phone call so important that you couldn't pull off the road and commit your full attention to the call, and not have to split your concentration with driving, thus being in better position to drive and avoid potential collisions otherwise?

In the end, getting to some mythological level in a video game shouldn't take precedence to acknowledging family members and friends and taking an interest in their lives. But sadly, it does take priority for some, and it's the gradual disconnect that lessens familial and personal connections that, IMHO, makes for a lesser existance in the long run for all of us.

There's a time and a place for the use of ever-evolving new technological devices, people just need to learn the appropriate when and where.

 

[Carlo_M]

I don't think anyone here (or even the author) is suggesting technology is bad.

I completely agree that technology is another tool, and it's the way humans use (or don't use) it that makes for a positive or negative impact. Like the old adage, guns don't kill people...people kill people. A blackberry, IM, email client, can be used for increased awareness and critical communication, but in today's world it is most often not used for it.

And the thing the article points out, which is not really being addressed here, is that technology can empower or imprison, and the way we are being either led to use the technology (for work) or choose to use it (for play) has more of an imprisoning or limiting effect than an expanding one.

Don't think the younger generation (and not just college kids, but also people in their 20s and early 30s) are not aware of things going on in their society (in a political/socio-economic sense)? Just try talking with some of them on those topics.

 

[RobertR]

But it does refute your claim that "It is nearly impossible to have societal-impacting conversations in an e-fashion", Carlo. Internet communication clearly DOES impact society. And the question is not "are most people active discussers of and participants in politics?". The answer has probably always been no. The question is, has modern technology made people LESS aware of, knowledgeable, and interested in politics or "great issues"? I say the answer is also no.

 

[Patrick Sun]

How's that new adage go?

"A face-to-face meeting is worth 1,000 emails."

 

[MarkHastings]

When the telephone was invented, I'm sure people had the same discussion. It's just that there was no internet to have a major discussion.

 

[RobertR]

That's valid when talking about sexual attraction, but not global warming.

 

[Patrick Sun]

What about groinal warming? Okay, I'm done.

 

[MarkHastings]

While some do use it as a portable entertainment resource, why can't they also be used as the same "Library" that your DVD collection is? What's the difference between having 600 CD's on a book shelf, or those same 600 CD's on an iPod? Do you 'hide' all of the DVD's you don't watch (or haven't watched in some time)?

And what really is wrong with a "portable entertainment resource"? I would say that listening to a vast amount of music on an iPod is much more worthwhile than using the CD's as a 'display'.

People like to listen to music when they walk (or drive), and peoples moods change constantly. Having the ability to adapt your music to your mood is great! That's a plus in terms of technology. Do we need this ability? Not exactly, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

 

[JonZ]

"So he wants to own nothing? We'd be in an incredible hell of a mess without property and striving to better ourselves."

When I went to art school, I owned nothing. A small apt,a small crappy TV, about 20 VHS tapes with kung Fu movies on them, a bed and 2 boxes of comic books.


It was very liberating - to be so poor and without anything. I lived off $25 a week, just enough to buy a little food. I was very happy.


I definitely agree with simple living and high thinking.My one indulgence is my Home Theater.

 

[RobertR]

Where did the apartment you lived in come from? The food? The VHS tapes? The TV? They all came from people using their minds and working hard, and NOT content to "just buy a little food" or "live as simply as possible". Without them, you'd be spending virtually ALL your time hunting for something to eat, cooking it, and sheltering yourself against the elements. There would be no time for studying art (especially since there would be no "merchant princes" working to produce and sell ANYTHING that's part of making an art school, including the books you read).

I have this picture of you as an art student needing specialized medical attention, and being told that you won't get it, because "simple living" precludes bothering to understand biology, develop the countless technologies used in modern medicine, or working your ass off to become a doctor (instead of "walking in a meadow").

I have to laugh at the people viewing themselves as some sort of deep thinking philosopher kings, while looking down their noses at anyone gauche enough to actually produce what people want and need (but, of course, very eager to partake of the fruits of what others labored to produce).

 

[MarkHastings]

Exactly, you really can't live without technology, because everything you do, requires the use of something that was created with technology.

Without technology, we'd all still be apes.

Not being a slave to it is one thing, but saying you're giving it up is another. You can't give something up yet live off it's effects at the same time.

This one's for Holadem: It's kinda like a foreigner fleeing his/her country to America and then complaining how horrible it is here.

 

[Holadem]

What's preventing you from returning to that blissfull state?

--
H

 

[Patrick Sun]

Good grief, JonZ was talking about living an unencumbered life, and you guys are talking about the stone age. There's still room to accept progress, but also live without the enormous trappings that technology offers.