4 ms·

> I don't believe the digital revolution "did this to us". I think it's simply a mirror and and amplifier what was already there. You saying the same thing and

> I don't believe the digital revolution "did this to us". I think it's simply a mirror and and amplifier what was already there. You saying the same thing and its exact contrary. Of course it's always been there. That's not the point. The point is that the so-called revolution/empowerment is promoting the worst out of us collectively and individually, instead of taming the beast, and helping the best. Taming the beast, the destructive human passions, for the common good, which is the very point of "civilisation". Edit: > and we're realising there is a problem It's been thousands of years we've realised, we know there is a problem. People have discoursed/written about it so much in the past.

asdfman123 7y ago
It's almost like saying, "Cars aren't responsible for polluting the environment. Our capacity for pollution has always been there." Well, of course it has, but small nudges are responsible for a big part of the course of history. But I completely agree with them on the isolation of car-based American culture.
- corodra 7y ago
  Yea, but if we're going to follow the logic of the article, the Harris Poll’s Alienation Index had American alienation at 29% in 1966. Car culture and the general structure of most towns were already mature at that point. I think the reliant of blaming car culture in America is a red herring to point away from not just the digital revolution but also the 90s media blitz. Late 80s and especially the 90s saw a real rapid change in the way we consume just about anything and everything. The VHS tape really came into power in the 90s, meaning most people didn't have to go out and sit in a large room of strangers to see hollywood movies anymore. While I do understand (and personally do like) places being close together so I can walk around. Don't pretend that city life is the perfect solution. There's the Rat Park experiment that showed utopian cities are not the answer and it plays out in the human psyche as well. People who live in cities are not necessarily happier than those in rural communities. There's a few NGOs that do happiness surveys across the globe. While living in a city may make you richer and maybe even technically healthier in some aspects, very few are happier than their rural counterparts. Just saying, it's definitely more complicated than just "car culture".
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    Oh, sure, I mainly meant I felt how isolating car culture is, too. I pretty much have to live somewhat near a reasonably busy running trail. Sometimes, I think I go running just to see other human faces even if we have no interaction. It was especially true when I had an 100% remote work job. I like to live near cool hangouts in the city where people regularly walk by, not because I leave the house that often, but because as a classic introvert I feed on other people's happy vibes.
    - corodra 7y ago
      Yea, I'm not picking on you about the car culture thing (sorry if it seemed so). I'm just getting irked by it because I've been seeing that comment so often the past year as "America bad because America likes cars, car culture bad". There's just way many to these issues than just cars. And, I agree, maybe too much reliance of cars in this country. I can totally agree we should focus on increasing the walk-ability of many communities. But, you can't deny having the ability to say at any moment, "I feel like going 30 miles somewhere, at my choosing and route" is a bad thing. I've been through 3 different public transit systems, (Portland, Seattle and Denver). Portland was the best out of the three. But knowing you are wasting 15 minutes waiting for public transit, then another 10-15 minutes of time to get there due to stops and general traffic (25-30 min) for essentially a 10 minute car ride... yea... It's great in plenty of situations, but is annoying as hell in just as many. The fact that my mobility is not dictated by someone else, yes, to me, is worth the extra monthly cost in comparison of daily use public transit tickets.
      - asdfman123 7y ago
        Yeah, it's a backlash from all us millenials who felt trapped growing up in the suburbs and moved to the city at the first chance we got. It's important to have nuanced views on things, though.
        corodra 7y ago
        I get that, I'm 32, a millenial as well. I tried the urban lifestyle because... well, I guess I was supposed to. It was fun at first, and then I hated it. Three different cities and, just not for me. I like having a backyard (I like to garden) but I also don't like having to pay two to three times the price for living. I don't need to hit downtown everyday. I'd rather invite friends over to grill/drink. While owning a car might be "more expensive" than using just public transit, the general lifestyle of not living urban is far cheaper. That and if we all pass out on the floor, it's not frowned upon when at someone's house. It is when you're at a bar. It's sort of like when people in some of the big Cali cities complain it's impossible to own a home or save enough money. No, where you live is terrible. There was an NPR story a year or so ago about a couple selling their home in san fran, then buying a bigger home in cash in Michigan (I think), paying off some debt and still had a savings left over, which they never could do before. They took "pay cuts" compared to their old jobs, but they were living far easier, with a savings in comparison to cost of living. Personally, it took me way too long to realize salaries are not created equal depending on location. 60k in a place like San Fran or Seattle, does not equal 60k in let's say Tampa, FL. You can live far better in Tampa on 60k than you ever could in Seattle. That's something I think a lot of people aren't quite picking up on. There's a cost/benefit to location. You want to live urban? There are things you have to sacrifice (like a savings account unless you work finance or make a shit ton of cash). Don't want to sacrifice that? Then you can't live there. Simple as that. There are other places to live... with trees. I like trees. Also, it's quiet away from the city. I get far better sleep these days.
ivanhoe 7y ago
Common good and individual freedoms are often opposed, as it's very unlikely for us to succeed in taming just the destructive sides of human passions, without taking away a bit of creative and positive passions and freedoms too. Societies always oscillate between the two, and unfortunately it seems that we're now past the first half and in the phase where people get scared into giving away individual freedoms in exchange for more safety and sense of control.

asdfman123 7y ago

It's almost like saying, "Cars aren't responsible for polluting the environment. Our capacity for pollution has always been there." Well, of course it has, but small nudges are responsible for a big part of the course of history. But I completely agree with them on the isolation of car-based American culture.

corodra 7y ago
Yea, but if we're going to follow the logic of the article, the Harris Poll’s Alienation Index had American alienation at 29% in 1966. Car culture and the general structure of most towns were already mature at that point. I think the reliant of blaming car culture in America is a red herring to point away from not just the digital revolution but also the 90s media blitz. Late 80s and especially the 90s saw a real rapid change in the way we consume just about anything and everything. The VHS tape really came into power in the 90s, meaning most people didn't have to go out and sit in a large room of strangers to see hollywood movies anymore. While I do understand (and personally do like) places being close together so I can walk around. Don't pretend that city life is the perfect solution. There's the Rat Park experiment that showed utopian cities are not the answer and it plays out in the human psyche as well. People who live in cities are not necessarily happier than those in rural communities. There's a few NGOs that do happiness surveys across the globe. While living in a city may make you richer and maybe even technically healthier in some aspects, very few are happier than their rural counterparts. Just saying, it's definitely more complicated than just "car culture".
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Oh, sure, I mainly meant I felt how isolating car culture is, too. I pretty much have to live somewhat near a reasonably busy running trail. Sometimes, I think I go running just to see other human faces even if we have no interaction. It was especially true when I had an 100% remote work job. I like to live near cool hangouts in the city where people regularly walk by, not because I leave the house that often, but because as a classic introvert I feed on other people's happy vibes.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Yea, I'm not picking on you about the car culture thing (sorry if it seemed so). I'm just getting irked by it because I've been seeing that comment so often the past year as "America bad because America likes cars, car culture bad". There's just way many to these issues than just cars. And, I agree, maybe too much reliance of cars in this country. I can totally agree we should focus on increasing the walk-ability of many communities. But, you can't deny having the ability to say at any moment, "I feel like going 30 miles somewhere, at my choosing and route" is a bad thing. I've been through 3 different public transit systems, (Portland, Seattle and Denver). Portland was the best out of the three. But knowing you are wasting 15 minutes waiting for public transit, then another 10-15 minutes of time to get there due to stops and general traffic (25-30 min) for essentially a 10 minute car ride... yea... It's great in plenty of situations, but is annoying as hell in just as many. The fact that my mobility is not dictated by someone else, yes, to me, is worth the extra monthly cost in comparison of daily use public transit tickets.
    - asdfman123 7y ago
      Yeah, it's a backlash from all us millenials who felt trapped growing up in the suburbs and moved to the city at the first chance we got. It's important to have nuanced views on things, though.
      - corodra 7y ago
        I get that, I'm 32, a millenial as well. I tried the urban lifestyle because... well, I guess I was supposed to. It was fun at first, and then I hated it. Three different cities and, just not for me. I like having a backyard (I like to garden) but I also don't like having to pay two to three times the price for living. I don't need to hit downtown everyday. I'd rather invite friends over to grill/drink. While owning a car might be "more expensive" than using just public transit, the general lifestyle of not living urban is far cheaper. That and if we all pass out on the floor, it's not frowned upon when at someone's house. It is when you're at a bar. It's sort of like when people in some of the big Cali cities complain it's impossible to own a home or save enough money. No, where you live is terrible. There was an NPR story a year or so ago about a couple selling their home in san fran, then buying a bigger home in cash in Michigan (I think), paying off some debt and still had a savings left over, which they never could do before. They took "pay cuts" compared to their old jobs, but they were living far easier, with a savings in comparison to cost of living. Personally, it took me way too long to realize salaries are not created equal depending on location. 60k in a place like San Fran or Seattle, does not equal 60k in let's say Tampa, FL. You can live far better in Tampa on 60k than you ever could in Seattle. That's something I think a lot of people aren't quite picking up on. There's a cost/benefit to location. You want to live urban? There are things you have to sacrifice (like a savings account unless you work finance or make a shit ton of cash). Don't want to sacrifice that? Then you can't live there. Simple as that. There are other places to live... with trees. I like trees. Also, it's quiet away from the city. I get far better sleep these days.

ivanhoe 7y ago

Common good and individual freedoms are often opposed, as it's very unlikely for us to succeed in taming just the destructive sides of human passions, without taking away a bit of creative and positive passions and freedoms too. Societies always oscillate between the two, and unfortunately it seems that we're now past the first half and in the phase where people get scared into giving away individual freedoms in exchange for more safety and sense of control.