4 ms·

I think the point at the end of the article is reasonable. But the argument in the middle is a tad silly. The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic,

I think the point at the end of the article is reasonable. But the argument in the middle is a tad silly. The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form. If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement. There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize. Sitting on a 1950's style cement highway for 30 minutes to go to a mall where I stand in the 1960's style Macy's checkout line is not the end-all and be-all of what it means to be human. That lifestyle an odd cultural aberration unique to the 20th and early 21st century. The idea that doing dishes or vacuuming or driving a car in rush hour traffic are necessary to experience serendipity or frustration or boredom is a truly tyrannical vision of what it means to be human. It's certainly true that we're not headed for a tech utopia (or dystopia), and that new technologies will have unintended and probably negative consequences (in addition to positive consequences). But I'm not worried about ending commutes or killing the modern grocery shopping experience. Those things are inessential to the human experience and a net drag on society.

420basteit 8y ago
However, even supposing these congestions are important to human wellbeing, the argument still fails to be compelling because it understates the development of psychological knowledge that would occur alongside the technological development. Why shouldn't the techno Utopia be able to take advantage of psychological findings to maximize happiness of humans? If the theory about congestion leading to happiness is true and empirically discoverable, then the techno Utopia can take advantage of it to increase happiness by integrating the 'best' kind of congestion possible into the lives of its human constituents. I personally agree that these congestions are inessential. They are only desirable insofar as they force people who ordinarily "live in the fast lane" to meditate, daydream, and socialize. These are actual essential activities in my opinion. When inefficiencies are removed people will actually have more time to directly focus on these things, rather than having their meditation/social time relegated to periods where they are waiting on something they should not have to.
coldtea 8y ago
>The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form. There two ways (at least) that the argument can still be perfectly valid: 1) Recentness or not doesn't matter. Women vote and no slavery/segregation are also recent things that have also "only been around for 50ish years" (or close enough), but one would presumably still consider them essential. 2) The gist of the argument is probably not about those particular annoyances per se, but about having annoyances (or non-optimizations or room for error, etc) in general (all of which are driven away by technology).
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  Women's suffrage and laws prohibiting slavery are modern but are not modern annoyances. Your second point is already addressed: learning a new field of mathematics or science can be deeply frustrating and requires grit. The automation of daily chores does not necessitate the death of annoyance or grit. Just like people still work hard every day even though farming highly automated.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hydrox24 8y ago
I think you have been a little unfair the the argument cited. The author is not arguing for any of the modern annoyances you list. They are arguing for boredom, tedium, and for serendipity. Why are they arguing for some measure of these things? Let me quote your argumnet again: >If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement. > There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize. Indeed, you would technically have more time to do these things. But you would not necessarily know you want to do them, nor find the time to sit and ponder. Not if every moment has been optimised to speed you through your day and onto the next productive task. Perhaps, you argue, we would realise such moments are important and build them into the system, leaving patches of "hard reality". But we have already begun the process, and the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart) have both shown how the last half century has eroded actual participation in the activities we have been freed to do more of. They also show that it is hurting us, particularly anyone who is not bright or rich. Ultimately, we need both the time to build grit, socialise and be serendipitous, as well as the moments of frustration and boredom which allow our minds to wander to such possibilities.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  Your post and my post are both full of hypotheticals, so let's stick to the core empirical claim that could prove you're more correct: > the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart)... There are two problems with Bowling Alone. 1. Bowling is boring; I'd rather grab a cappucino. Putnam and Murray suppose that the social institutions and conventions of 1910-1940 were a platonic ideal and therefore ignore the myriad of new ways that people socialize and engage in their communities. To pick just one relevant example, hackerspaces only existed in a few major cities when I became interested in them 10-15 years ago. Now there's at least one in every major city as well as many in smaller communities. But hackerspaces are just an example; there are thousands of other examples of the same phenomenon: popular and thriving community forums that didn't even exist in 1910-1940. This form of community engagement is the sort of thing that Putnam and Murray completely miss in their analysis because, for them, "community engagement" means regular contact with one of ten or so institutions they happened to have statistics for when they wrote their book. I spend less time at church potlucks and bowling nights than my grandparents. But then, my grandparents never met friends at coffee shops or hung out at hackerspaces. 2. Far more damning, Putnam and Murray weren't even correct for the tiny subset of community engagement metrics they chose to form their best-selling "darn kids born after 1940" thesis. See e.g., Everett Lad's critique of Bowling Alone. So not only did new forms of community engagement pop up in response to changing times and interests, but traditional forms of community engagement continued to thrive!

420basteit 8y ago

However, even supposing these congestions are important to human wellbeing, the argument still fails to be compelling because it understates the development of psychological knowledge that would occur alongside the technological development. Why shouldn't the techno Utopia be able to take advantage of psychological findings to maximize happiness of humans? If the theory about congestion leading to happiness is true and empirically discoverable, then the techno Utopia can take advantage of it to increase happiness by integrating the 'best' kind of congestion possible into the lives of its human constituents. I personally agree that these congestions are inessential. They are only desirable insofar as they force people who ordinarily "live in the fast lane" to meditate, daydream, and socialize. These are actual essential activities in my opinion. When inefficiencies are removed people will actually have more time to directly focus on these things, rather than having their meditation/social time relegated to periods where they are waiting on something they should not have to.

coldtea 8y ago

>The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form. There two ways (at least) that the argument can still be perfectly valid: 1) Recentness or not doesn't matter. Women vote and no slavery/segregation are also recent things that have also "only been around for 50ish years" (or close enough), but one would presumably still consider them essential. 2) The gist of the argument is probably not about those particular annoyances per se, but about having annoyances (or non-optimizations or room for error, etc) in general (all of which are driven away by technology).

throwawayjava 8y ago
Women's suffrage and laws prohibiting slavery are modern but are not modern annoyances. Your second point is already addressed: learning a new field of mathematics or science can be deeply frustrating and requires grit. The automation of daily chores does not necessitate the death of annoyance or grit. Just like people still work hard every day even though farming highly automated.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hydrox24 8y ago

I think you have been a little unfair the the argument cited. The author is not arguing for any of the modern annoyances you list. They are arguing for boredom, tedium, and for serendipity. Why are they arguing for some measure of these things? Let me quote your argumnet again: >If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement. > There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize. Indeed, you would technically have more time to do these things. But you would not necessarily know you want to do them, nor find the time to sit and ponder. Not if every moment has been optimised to speed you through your day and onto the next productive task. Perhaps, you argue, we would realise such moments are important and build them into the system, leaving patches of "hard reality". But we have already begun the process, and the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart) have both shown how the last half century has eroded actual participation in the activities we have been freed to do more of. They also show that it is hurting us, particularly anyone who is not bright or rich. Ultimately, we need both the time to build grit, socialise and be serendipitous, as well as the moments of frustration and boredom which allow our minds to wander to such possibilities.

throwawayjava 8y ago
Your post and my post are both full of hypotheticals, so let's stick to the core empirical claim that could prove you're more correct: > the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart)... There are two problems with Bowling Alone. 1. Bowling is boring; I'd rather grab a cappucino. Putnam and Murray suppose that the social institutions and conventions of 1910-1940 were a platonic ideal and therefore ignore the myriad of new ways that people socialize and engage in their communities. To pick just one relevant example, hackerspaces only existed in a few major cities when I became interested in them 10-15 years ago. Now there's at least one in every major city as well as many in smaller communities. But hackerspaces are just an example; there are thousands of other examples of the same phenomenon: popular and thriving community forums that didn't even exist in 1910-1940. This form of community engagement is the sort of thing that Putnam and Murray completely miss in their analysis because, for them, "community engagement" means regular contact with one of ten or so institutions they happened to have statistics for when they wrote their book. I spend less time at church potlucks and bowling nights than my grandparents. But then, my grandparents never met friends at coffee shops or hung out at hackerspaces. 2. Far more damning, Putnam and Murray weren't even correct for the tiny subset of community engagement metrics they chose to form their best-selling "darn kids born after 1940" thesis. See e.g., Everett Lad's critique of Bowling Alone. So not only did new forms of community engagement pop up in response to changing times and interests, but traditional forms of community engagement continued to thrive!