4 ms·

"Just as we now try to control atom-bomb fallout, so we will one day try to control media fallout. Education will become recognized as civil defense against med

by avivo 10y ago

"Just as we now try to control atom-bomb fallout, so we will one day try to control media fallout. Education will become recognized as civil defense against media fallout" Written in 1964, this remains both deeply relevant and deeply naive. "Media" in this context means the impact of technology on how we perceive and understand the world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#McLuhan.27s_concept_of_.22media.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#McLuhan.27...). It's relevant, as new "mediums" play their part in the decline of democracy and freedom worldwide. It's naive, as we as a society have definitely not yet recognized the importance of education enough — our "civil defense against media fallout" remains very weak.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
johnchristopher 10y ago
It depends where you live but I wouldn't say the society I was raised in (Western Europe, mid nineties) and educated had some strategies in place to defend against media fallout (high school courses and radio/tv programs).
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It's not just McLuhan - even Ayn Rand's "villain" in the Fountainhead was a caricature of Wm. Randolph Hearst. That's turned out to be quite useful in understanding how distorted American history is, and floats independent of any controversial ideological content in her work. People were a lot more naive in 1964 in general. I am not sure that McLuhan was taken seriously then. Tow things I'll never fully understand about America in the post-war era - how is it that the Dulles brothers were allowed to operate as state-sponsored Filibusters[1] and how is it that Jim Crow was so heavily defended? [1] see William Walker in South America for that word - a person who engages in unauthorized warfare.
- yusee 10y ago
  Jim Crow is easy to explain. Racism.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
The antidote to this has been known since time immemorial and it. I'm not claiming that it is easy to achieve, but it is simple: Critical thinking, self awareness, and a healthy dose of skepticism. Even with those tools, the flaw ultimately lies within us humans as a species. The results of the Stanford Prison experiment and the Millgrim experiments show that humans have a natural tendency to obey perceived authority figures, even if it means going against our own ideals. It's sad, but that's why history repeats itself. We are the same species as we were 70,000 years ago. It is our institutions, modern luxuries, and collective knowledge which make us civilized. Take that away we will probably act more savagely than people in dystopic, post-apocalyptic fiction. The bestial nature of humanity slightly reveals itself int he wilds of LA traffic. People will call you the worst things and hope that all the bad things in life happen to you for simply driving slowly because you are in an unfamiliar area.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  It seems overly simplistic to say that our current ills are due to lack of skepticism or critical thinking and obeying authority figures. In fact the Internet has torn down existing authorities and given people the ability to create new communities as well as new authorities. For example, climate skepticism explicitly posits that traditional authorities (scientists, the news, etc.) are wrong and seeks validation in creating new authorities and sources of truth. You might claim that these people are lacking in critical thinking, but any act of skepticism, no matter how ill-founded, is in itself an attempt at critical thinking. Same thing with anti-vaxxers -- nowadays anyone with a crazy theory can find an online community that validates their beliefs. The internet has also majorly eroded trust in our existing institutions based on elite opinion and one-way media, while not creating replacements for those institutions. At the end of the day, one important role of institutions is to 1) make a decision and 2) get everyone to go along with it, even if the decision itself isn't perfect. The Internet has provided the tools for everyone easily criticize and pick apart any decision, without providing a viable alternative means to come to consensus. TL;DR you think the problem is institutions and authority, while I think the real problem is that the Internet is helping break them without putting them back together again.

by avivo 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

johnchristopher 10y ago

It depends where you live but I wouldn't say the society I was raised in (Western Europe, mid nineties) and educated had some strategies in place to defend against media fallout (high school courses and radio/tv programs).

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

It's not just McLuhan - even Ayn Rand's "villain" in the Fountainhead was a caricature of Wm. Randolph Hearst. That's turned out to be quite useful in understanding how distorted American history is, and floats independent of any controversial ideological content in her work. People were a lot more naive in 1964 in general. I am not sure that McLuhan was taken seriously then. Tow things I'll never fully understand about America in the post-war era - how is it that the Dulles brothers were allowed to operate as state-sponsored Filibusters[1] and how is it that Jim Crow was so heavily defended? [1] see William Walker in South America for that word - a person who engages in unauthorized warfare.

yusee 10y ago
Jim Crow is easy to explain. Racism.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

The antidote to this has been known since time immemorial and it. I'm not claiming that it is easy to achieve, but it is simple: Critical thinking, self awareness, and a healthy dose of skepticism. Even with those tools, the flaw ultimately lies within us humans as a species. The results of the Stanford Prison experiment and the Millgrim experiments show that humans have a natural tendency to obey perceived authority figures, even if it means going against our own ideals. It's sad, but that's why history repeats itself. We are the same species as we were 70,000 years ago. It is our institutions, modern luxuries, and collective knowledge which make us civilized. Take that away we will probably act more savagely than people in dystopic, post-apocalyptic fiction. The bestial nature of humanity slightly reveals itself int he wilds of LA traffic. People will call you the worst things and hope that all the bad things in life happen to you for simply driving slowly because you are in an unfamiliar area.

smallnamespace 10y ago
It seems overly simplistic to say that our current ills are due to lack of skepticism or critical thinking and obeying authority figures. In fact the Internet has torn down existing authorities and given people the ability to create new communities as well as new authorities. For example, climate skepticism explicitly posits that traditional authorities (scientists, the news, etc.) are wrong and seeks validation in creating new authorities and sources of truth. You might claim that these people are lacking in critical thinking, but any act of skepticism, no matter how ill-founded, is in itself an attempt at critical thinking. Same thing with anti-vaxxers -- nowadays anyone with a crazy theory can find an online community that validates their beliefs. The internet has also majorly eroded trust in our existing institutions based on elite opinion and one-way media, while not creating replacements for those institutions. At the end of the day, one important role of institutions is to 1) make a decision and 2) get everyone to go along with it, even if the decision itself isn't perfect. The Internet has provided the tools for everyone easily criticize and pick apart any decision, without providing a viable alternative means to come to consensus. TL;DR you think the problem is institutions and authority, while I think the real problem is that the Internet is helping break them without putting them back together again.