7 ms·

> Or read a book. Or play with your kids. Or your pets. Or talk to your spouse/significant other/friends. Or write code. Or post on your blog. > you do have to

> Or read a book. Or play with your kids. Or your pets. Or talk to your spouse/significant other/friends. Or write code. Or post on your blog. > you do have to choose. Yes, convenience frees you up to pursue something else, but I've felt that it takes so much willpower to pick an activity you know to be of value to you (like exercise, or reading a book) over something immediately gratifying. Another thing I've been thinking about, related to this is that our value systems and/or attention span have been weakened severely by the torrent of information and immediate connectivity these days have. I remember this quote attributed to G. Michael Hopf: "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." What if this pursuit of convenience is making us weaker, and in the long run, blind to what should be pursued with the time we free up?

nopassrecover 7y ago
You may be interested in this if you haven’t already come across it previously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_th...
- ralphstodomingo 7y ago
  Really interesting bit, wouldn't have found it unless you sent me this. Interested, too, to hear what people think about it.
pdonis 7y ago
> it takes so much willpower to pick an activity you know to be of value to you (like exercise, or reading a book) over something immediately gratifying Yes, it does. Anything worthwhile requires effort. But most such things can also benefit greatly from practice--the more you are able to choose to do them, the easier it gets to choose to do them.
Kalium 7y ago
> Yes, convenience frees you up to pursue something else, but I've felt that it takes so much willpower to pick an activity you know to be of value to you (like exercise, or reading a book) over something immediately gratifying. Whereas before you didn't have to choose and never got an opportunity to use your willpower to pick an activity of value. What's to say that people weren't made weak and compliant by a lack of opportunity to make their own choices? > What if this pursuit of convenience is making us weaker, and in the long run, blind to what should be pursued with the time we free up? What if it isn't? What if this is little more than another moral panic, such as a decade ago how sexting was going to ruin everyone forever and was a threat to all children? It seems to me that there are few answers here, but an awful lot of moralizing about shockingly little. Re-frame much of it as the quest for self-mastery, and now generations of philosophers approve.
- ralphstodomingo 7y ago
  > Whereas before you didn't have to choose and never got an opportunity to use your willpower to pick an activity of value. What's to say that people weren't made weak and compliant by a lack of opportunity to make their own choices? Is the lack of choices and opportunity absolutely less preferable than wasting collective human time and energy in the deceptive pursuit of convenience? Also, aren't we converging to a future where we are in less control of important things, like privacy, human rights and environmental health, because we have traded them away to entities who were willing to take these from us in the pretext of convenience? What if it isn't? What if this is little more than another moral panic? Aren't we better off treating matters like these with care rather than abandon regardless? I think it's weak to dismiss this as a moral panic simply because an unrelated concept came and proved to be one. Back then, you knew the bad people simply wanted to take your freedom and use it to empower their choices. Now, they feed off our compliance and mindless consumption with a smile on their face and we seek them out actively. I or you may benefit individually, but atrophy is a real thing, tedium and hardship serves its own purpose. Would you make the case that we do not weaken mankind as a whole, or in the long run?
  - Kalium 7y ago
    I'm saying the premises as presented don't hold water, and therefore the arguments rooted in them do not function as intended. For instance, we are in a context where we are less in control of important things, like privacy, human rights, and environmental health than we would like. We are not in a context where we previously had full individual control of these things. We in aggregate, human socities, have always traded these away for one reason or another. What clear rubric makes one reason better or worse? Whether this is a moral panic is an interesting question. It gets to the core of the issue. Specifically, is there any good evidence to believe that convenience is making humanity weaker? Perhaps it is true. Perhaps it is the opposite of true. Perhaps the truth is a mixed bag. Perhaps it's unmeasurable, making the whole subject one purely of personal opinion. Do we even have a clear definition of "strong" or "weak"? I'm making the case that you have a wonderful opportunity to convincingly make yours ahead of you yet.
pjc50 7y ago
All this talk of "strong men" being created by hardship is the bread and butter of fascist propaganda and jihadi recruiting videos. This sounds pedantic, but it's a core point that the quote talks of men, while historically it's women that have been the beneficiaries of labour-saving machinery in the home. While John Henry was trying to fight the steam shovel, Janet Henry was waiting for the washing machine to arrive. And both genders can benefit from accomodative technology as they age and weaken. Not to mention the younger disabled. See all those catalogues of seemingly useless hyper-specific kitchen gadgets; they're actually accessibility aids that for reasons of customer pride can't be marketed as such. "Convenience" doesn't just extend your life by giving you more in the middle. It extends your time of useful independence.
- badpun 7y ago
  > All this talk of "strong men" being created by hardship is the bread and butter of fascist propaganda and jihadi recruiting videos. That's neither here nor there - even if they use such talk in their propaganda, that does not neccessarily mean it is false (I cannot imagine that for example every single notion that Hitler held was false, or even a single contested notion - statistically, he had to be right about something).
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    >statistically, he had to be right about something There's a dangerous propensity for people to look at something someone says and go "well. he's right about that, so he must have something to offer to the conversation". What people say usually has a deeper reason than the face value of the comment. Taking random quotes from philosophers / religious texts / leaders / raconteurs can support pretty much anything you want it to. The original quote probably had a deeper reason. In the case of Hitler (and pretty much any despot throughout history) the "right about something" quotes were carefully crafted to lower the guard of otherwise moderate people to bring the bigger, "core" message closer to being accepted. The point is that the "strong men" line, although possibly true, is historically only used by those looking to appeal to those who self-identify as "strong men", and usually in order to manipulate them to a cause that pits them against the "weak men". The statement may have truth in isolation, but historically it has red flags hanging all over it. Also, I'm amazed we haven't gone all Godwin at the mention of Hitler!

nopassrecover 7y ago

You may be interested in this if you haven’t already come across it previously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_th...

ralphstodomingo 7y ago
Really interesting bit, wouldn't have found it unless you sent me this. Interested, too, to hear what people think about it.

pdonis 7y ago

> it takes so much willpower to pick an activity you know to be of value to you (like exercise, or reading a book) over something immediately gratifying Yes, it does. Anything worthwhile requires effort. But most such things can also benefit greatly from practice--the more you are able to choose to do them, the easier it gets to choose to do them.

Kalium 7y ago

> Yes, convenience frees you up to pursue something else, but I've felt that it takes so much willpower to pick an activity you know to be of value to you (like exercise, or reading a book) over something immediately gratifying. Whereas before you didn't have to choose and never got an opportunity to use your willpower to pick an activity of value. What's to say that people weren't made weak and compliant by a lack of opportunity to make their own choices? > What if this pursuit of convenience is making us weaker, and in the long run, blind to what should be pursued with the time we free up? What if it isn't? What if this is little more than another moral panic, such as a decade ago how sexting was going to ruin everyone forever and was a threat to all children? It seems to me that there are few answers here, but an awful lot of moralizing about shockingly little. Re-frame much of it as the quest for self-mastery, and now generations of philosophers approve.

ralphstodomingo 7y ago
> Whereas before you didn't have to choose and never got an opportunity to use your willpower to pick an activity of value. What's to say that people weren't made weak and compliant by a lack of opportunity to make their own choices? Is the lack of choices and opportunity absolutely less preferable than wasting collective human time and energy in the deceptive pursuit of convenience? Also, aren't we converging to a future where we are in less control of important things, like privacy, human rights and environmental health, because we have traded them away to entities who were willing to take these from us in the pretext of convenience? What if it isn't? What if this is little more than another moral panic? Aren't we better off treating matters like these with care rather than abandon regardless? I think it's weak to dismiss this as a moral panic simply because an unrelated concept came and proved to be one. Back then, you knew the bad people simply wanted to take your freedom and use it to empower their choices. Now, they feed off our compliance and mindless consumption with a smile on their face and we seek them out actively. I or you may benefit individually, but atrophy is a real thing, tedium and hardship serves its own purpose. Would you make the case that we do not weaken mankind as a whole, or in the long run?
- Kalium 7y ago
  I'm saying the premises as presented don't hold water, and therefore the arguments rooted in them do not function as intended. For instance, we are in a context where we are less in control of important things, like privacy, human rights, and environmental health than we would like. We are not in a context where we previously had full individual control of these things. We in aggregate, human socities, have always traded these away for one reason or another. What clear rubric makes one reason better or worse? Whether this is a moral panic is an interesting question. It gets to the core of the issue. Specifically, is there any good evidence to believe that convenience is making humanity weaker? Perhaps it is true. Perhaps it is the opposite of true. Perhaps the truth is a mixed bag. Perhaps it's unmeasurable, making the whole subject one purely of personal opinion. Do we even have a clear definition of "strong" or "weak"? I'm making the case that you have a wonderful opportunity to convincingly make yours ahead of you yet.

pjc50 7y ago

All this talk of "strong men" being created by hardship is the bread and butter of fascist propaganda and jihadi recruiting videos. This sounds pedantic, but it's a core point that the quote talks of men, while historically it's women that have been the beneficiaries of labour-saving machinery in the home. While John Henry was trying to fight the steam shovel, Janet Henry was waiting for the washing machine to arrive. And both genders can benefit from accomodative technology as they age and weaken. Not to mention the younger disabled. See all those catalogues of seemingly useless hyper-specific kitchen gadgets; they're actually accessibility aids that for reasons of customer pride can't be marketed as such. "Convenience" doesn't just extend your life by giving you more in the middle. It extends your time of useful independence.

badpun 7y ago
> All this talk of "strong men" being created by hardship is the bread and butter of fascist propaganda and jihadi recruiting videos. That's neither here nor there - even if they use such talk in their propaganda, that does not neccessarily mean it is false (I cannot imagine that for example every single notion that Hitler held was false, or even a single contested notion - statistically, he had to be right about something).
- Intermernet 7y ago
  >statistically, he had to be right about something There's a dangerous propensity for people to look at something someone says and go "well. he's right about that, so he must have something to offer to the conversation". What people say usually has a deeper reason than the face value of the comment. Taking random quotes from philosophers / religious texts / leaders / raconteurs can support pretty much anything you want it to. The original quote probably had a deeper reason. In the case of Hitler (and pretty much any despot throughout history) the "right about something" quotes were carefully crafted to lower the guard of otherwise moderate people to bring the bigger, "core" message closer to being accepted. The point is that the "strong men" line, although possibly true, is historically only used by those looking to appeal to those who self-identify as "strong men", and usually in order to manipulate them to a cause that pits them against the "weak men". The statement may have truth in isolation, but historically it has red flags hanging all over it. Also, I'm amazed we haven't gone all Godwin at the mention of Hitler!