3 ms·

>For those who thought that modern life wasn't easy or technology-filled enough This trope has been around for hundreds of years.

coldtea 11y ago
>This trope has been around for hundreds of years. The same is true for this retort. The thing is, just because it has been said for "hundreds of years" doesn't mean it's always false when it's said. It could be that (always false), of course. But it could also be partly true, e.g. pointing to a real loss that we suffered because of the infusion of technology in everyday life. Here are some examples of technologically-caused issues that a lot of people, if not most, could do without: environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc. Noise pollution. Cities designed around cars, that destroy the human scale and prevent the kind of relationships and urban life fostered by places like Manhattan, Vienna, Paris, etc. Technology as enabler of surveillance and loss of privacy. Military technology that can blow the world 10 times over. The same-ization of the world and the cheapening of cities due to global commerce, tourism, etc. Loss of quality time with friends and other people in the era of the smartphone. That one might point at improvements in other areas that offset these negatives/losses , doesn't mean there wasn't any loss in the first place. A last possible case, regarding the original complaint, is that while it might be said for "hundreds of years" it could be especially true now. Just because people might claim it's midnight from early morning doesn't mean that it wont eventually be midnight. And I'd argue that that's the case, myself. If somebody complained about the prevalence of technology in the eighties (and several people did), predicting that it will get to a point that we'll be so depended on it, as to have cpus in every damn thing, including our keys, shoes, microwaves, etc, they would have told him that he fell for the "slippery slope" fallacy. Well, the Internet of Thing is the actual realization of that slippery slope.
- massysett 11y ago
  "environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc." Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics? You could voluntarily give these things up. Indeed some communities (e.g. Amish) forsake some technologies. Instead you are using these technologies, enjoying them despite their ill effects, while claiming that most could do without them.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics? Probably missed the part where I wrote: "That one might point at improvements in other areas that offset these negatives/losses , doesn't mean there wasn't any loss in the first place" Just because something (e.g. plastics) had a useful result, doesn't mean all of its results are useful, that it's sustainable in the long run (e.g. wont come back to bite us in the ass), or that it's currently used optimally. Besides, one can still acknowledge some harm despite the fact that he himself uses what's harmful (e.g. I don't like that pigs are killed for it, but bacon is delicious). That's not "hypocritical", it's just weighting pros and cons. And it's not like it's a black or white thing either. Acknowledging the harm makes us able to make decisions about how to improve things. E.g, to give an extreme example regarding your question, one could very well say: I'm ok with using plastics for important things like computers, but not with the tons of plastic garbage every year but making tons of disposable plastic BS from it (e.g. see the ban on plastic shopping bags in some places).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Personally, I'm totally fine with "moar tech". I'm also totally fine with globalization, and what you call "same-ization of the world and the cheapening of cities due to global commerce, tourism, etc." I call optimization and the world getting a more sane place. E.g. local cuisine is fine and all, and is not going away, but I love having an option of a McDonalds as a backup plan when I my stomach can't get used to regional food. As for plastic, this is pretty much a miracle material and is absolutely not something we would like to do without. Yes, we could keep using wood and metal, but plastics are so much more awesome. There's a lot of reasons why we make everything from it. Your point about slippery slopes is of course valid. Slippery slope is a fallacy until suddenly it isn't. But frankly, the problem with IoT is not technology. Internet is fine, putting microcontrollers in stuff to optimize or enhance it is also fine. Pretty much every single issue with IoT is either greedy business strategy or dishonest marketing.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >But frankly, the problem with IoT is not technology. Internet is fine, putting microcontrollers in stuff to optimize or enhance it is also fine. Pretty much every single issue with IoT is either greedy business strategy or dishonest marketing. Also think about the implications of IoTs infrastructure + a modern dictatorship (or merely a government in bed with big corporations). I also have this idea but all it takes is a totally fucked up tech event [1] to make people surviving it think "Yeah, tech was nice, but we might have been better off without much of it to begin with". [1] E.g. "singularity apocalypse", nuclear war, a 4th Reich armed with modern surveillance capabilities, drones, fighting robots and IoT level reach, a huge ecological meltdown, etc. Suddenly technology's blessings like the ability to play "Legends of Zelda", send instant massages across the Atlantic and study new cancer drugs would look silly against billions dead.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > Also think about the implications of IoTs infrastructure + a modern dictatorship (or merely a government in bed with big corporations). Fair enough, though I thought about it for some time and came to the conclusion that if the government really wants to get you, they have so many possible avenues that you're screwed I used to fear about modern humans being too dependent on the Internet itself, because 'till today it is not dependable - you don't have constant coverage, etc. But I don't have that fear anymore (of technology; I still fear our on-line dependence on private companies with shitty business models, whether there are corporations or startups) - I realized we depend on the Internet in the same way we (i.e. urban populations) depend on electricity, water mains, sewage treatment, food logistics and probably few other things I don't even realize I use. If a "totally fucked up tech event" happens on a global scale, people in big cities, like me, are totally and utterly fucked. Our technology didn't simply make us dependent on it. It allowed us to flourish way over pure, natural capacity of our habitats. There is simply too many of us - an order of magnitude more than we can sustain with pre-industrial technology. There's no going back now, not without spilling lots of blood. People seem to want autonomy. To live out of their own strength to greater and greater extent. It's probably hard-wired in our brains. But since rolling everything back to pre-industrial age isn't a reasonable option, there's only one other - push the progress harder. Our current support systems are too fragile, too easy to break to give people more autonomy. But it doesn't have to be that way, we can make them stronger, more resilient and more self-sustaining. I imagine and hope that one day the power grid and the Internet will be just another part of environment, like rivers and trees and rain. Something that will take care of itself so that we may individually take care of ourselves.

coldtea 11y ago

>This trope has been around for hundreds of years. The same is true for this retort. The thing is, just because it has been said for "hundreds of years" doesn't mean it's always false when it's said. It could be that (always false), of course. But it could also be partly true, e.g. pointing to a real loss that we suffered because of the infusion of technology in everyday life. Here are some examples of technologically-caused issues that a lot of people, if not most, could do without: environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc. Noise pollution. Cities designed around cars, that destroy the human scale and prevent the kind of relationships and urban life fostered by places like Manhattan, Vienna, Paris, etc. Technology as enabler of surveillance and loss of privacy. Military technology that can blow the world 10 times over. The same-ization of the world and the cheapening of cities due to global commerce, tourism, etc. Loss of quality time with friends and other people in the era of the smartphone. That one might point at improvements in other areas that offset these negatives/losses , doesn't mean there wasn't any loss in the first place. A last possible case, regarding the original complaint, is that while it might be said for "hundreds of years" it could be especially true now. Just because people might claim it's midnight from early morning doesn't mean that it wont eventually be midnight. And I'd argue that that's the case, myself. If somebody complained about the prevalence of technology in the eighties (and several people did), predicting that it will get to a point that we'll be so depended on it, as to have cpus in every damn thing, including our keys, shoes, microwaves, etc, they would have told him that he fell for the "slippery slope" fallacy. Well, the Internet of Thing is the actual realization of that slippery slope.

massysett 11y ago
"environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc." Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics? You could voluntarily give these things up. Indeed some communities (e.g. Amish) forsake some technologies. Instead you are using these technologies, enjoying them despite their ill effects, while claiming that most could do without them.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics? Probably missed the part where I wrote: "That one might point at improvements in other areas that offset these negatives/losses , doesn't mean there wasn't any loss in the first place" Just because something (e.g. plastics) had a useful result, doesn't mean all of its results are useful, that it's sustainable in the long run (e.g. wont come back to bite us in the ass), or that it's currently used optimally. Besides, one can still acknowledge some harm despite the fact that he himself uses what's harmful (e.g. I don't like that pigs are killed for it, but bacon is delicious). That's not "hypocritical", it's just weighting pros and cons. And it's not like it's a black or white thing either. Acknowledging the harm makes us able to make decisions about how to improve things. E.g, to give an extreme example regarding your question, one could very well say: I'm ok with using plastics for important things like computers, but not with the tons of plastic garbage every year but making tons of disposable plastic BS from it (e.g. see the ban on plastic shopping bags in some places).
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Personally, I'm totally fine with "moar tech". I'm also totally fine with globalization, and what you call "same-ization of the world and the cheapening of cities due to global commerce, tourism, etc." I call optimization and the world getting a more sane place. E.g. local cuisine is fine and all, and is not going away, but I love having an option of a McDonalds as a backup plan when I my stomach can't get used to regional food. As for plastic, this is pretty much a miracle material and is absolutely not something we would like to do without. Yes, we could keep using wood and metal, but plastics are so much more awesome. There's a lot of reasons why we make everything from it. Your point about slippery slopes is of course valid. Slippery slope is a fallacy until suddenly it isn't. But frankly, the problem with IoT is not technology. Internet is fine, putting microcontrollers in stuff to optimize or enhance it is also fine. Pretty much every single issue with IoT is either greedy business strategy or dishonest marketing.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >But frankly, the problem with IoT is not technology. Internet is fine, putting microcontrollers in stuff to optimize or enhance it is also fine. Pretty much every single issue with IoT is either greedy business strategy or dishonest marketing. Also think about the implications of IoTs infrastructure + a modern dictatorship (or merely a government in bed with big corporations). I also have this idea but all it takes is a totally fucked up tech event [1] to make people surviving it think "Yeah, tech was nice, but we might have been better off without much of it to begin with". [1] E.g. "singularity apocalypse", nuclear war, a 4th Reich armed with modern surveillance capabilities, drones, fighting robots and IoT level reach, a huge ecological meltdown, etc. Suddenly technology's blessings like the ability to play "Legends of Zelda", send instant massages across the Atlantic and study new cancer drugs would look silly against billions dead.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Also think about the implications of IoTs infrastructure + a modern dictatorship (or merely a government in bed with big corporations). Fair enough, though I thought about it for some time and came to the conclusion that if the government really wants to get you, they have so many possible avenues that you're screwed I used to fear about modern humans being too dependent on the Internet itself, because 'till today it is not dependable - you don't have constant coverage, etc. But I don't have that fear anymore (of technology; I still fear our on-line dependence on private companies with shitty business models, whether there are corporations or startups) - I realized we depend on the Internet in the same way we (i.e. urban populations) depend on electricity, water mains, sewage treatment, food logistics and probably few other things I don't even realize I use. If a "totally fucked up tech event" happens on a global scale, people in big cities, like me, are totally and utterly fucked. Our technology didn't simply make us dependent on it. It allowed us to flourish way over pure, natural capacity of our habitats. There is simply too many of us - an order of magnitude more than we can sustain with pre-industrial technology. There's no going back now, not without spilling lots of blood. People seem to want autonomy. To live out of their own strength to greater and greater extent. It's probably hard-wired in our brains. But since rolling everything back to pre-industrial age isn't a reasonable option, there's only one other - push the progress harder. Our current support systems are too fragile, too easy to break to give people more autonomy. But it doesn't have to be that way, we can make them stronger, more resilient and more self-sustaining. I imagine and hope that one day the power grid and the Internet will be just another part of environment, like rivers and trees and rain. Something that will take care of itself so that we may individually take care of ourselves.