4 ms·
> Most of humanity has never been agile, curious and resourceful. Historically a handful of people were, and they tried to steer everyone around them. I have a
by evrydayhustling 8y ago
> Most of humanity has never been agile, curious and resourceful. Historically a handful of people were, and they tried to steer everyone around them.
I have a problem with this premise! My experience has been that when you look closely enough, most people are agile and curious within the sphere of their own action. What varies is the scale they believe they can act at, which can be a matter of internal motivation, social pressures and molding, or hard constraints.
The history you are referring to is one where people with the spare time and education to write histories have consistently assumed that masses have low ambition due to missing internal drive. That perspective is blind to forces that make high ambitions impractical for many people. This article is about how technology can sometimes contribute to those forces.
All that said, I agree with where you land here: the fix is for us to make tech that makes it easier for more people to be active.
- oblio 8y agoWell, my premise was summarized before: "most people are not active most of the time". If we look at examples of people who historically have had access to all the base resources they required, they weren't all active. Examples: Roman aristocracy, medieval feudal classes, modern day tycoon fortune inheritors. Only a small percentage were truly active most of the time. In my opinion it's not even healthy to be always active. It generally takes time away from down time with your friends and family.
- pjc50 8y agoI think you're going to have to define "active" here.
- oblio 8y agoResearching, working, helping your community, etc. Basically think of what the majority of people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing": watching sports, movies, TV series, listening to music, going to parties, hiking, reading a book, etc. I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing".
- xg15 8y agoThat definition makes an odd dichotomy between "turn-off-your-brain" style consumption on the "passive" side and necessary but mostly unrewarding chores on the "active" side. Where would creativity or curiosity fit in that definition? > I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing". I don't find that definition very intuitive.
- AstralStorm 8y agoBetter definition would be doing things that have lasting positive effects. (on themselves and / or society) In this regard, most people are active though do not have means to be active on global scale. In this definition, limited "passive" entertainment and consumption count as long as they bring long term positive results.
- crispyambulance 8y ago> I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing". People do crave meaning and self-actualization in their lives, it is the top of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. For some that means watching sports on cable TV, that is "active" to them. Who are we to judge?
- kiliantics 8y agoIf you consider hunter-gatherer societies, people were probably a lot more active by your definition than people are now.