4 ms·

I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. We used to spend so much time together, doing things together, I’m talking

I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. We used to spend so much time together, doing things together, I’m talking in the office to the roller rink. Perhaps this just shows how old I am, but I really felt like that was better for humanity. Global communication and interaction is great and all, but I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking

dantheman 5y ago
There's no reason to not do that; in fact its easier than ever to invite and plan things.
- tayo42 5y ago
  yeah I don't get that point, its not like people are deciding to scroll facebook instead of going to their friends bbq. maybe you could make the point that people pick activites for how good of a social media post it would make. But that's not even what this article is about, its discussing the spread of misinformation and social media being full of low information content.
slipframe 5y ago
I think that ubiquitous global communication is the "Great Filter" that prevents intelligent civilizations from colonizing the universe. Before any intelligent species can hope to tackle a problem like that, they invent something like the internet. And once they've invented an internet, they become addicted to low latency communication and will never stray far from it, at least not in significant numbers. Even one year of latency becomes utterly intolerable once an intelligent species has been using an internet for a few generations.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  Humans will never make it, but our computers will. The internet is the singularity now.
  - bckr 5y ago
    This comment is probably about 3 or 4 decades too early.
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened.
      - bckr 5y ago
        > You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened. This is the inverse of the intended interpretation. By "probably x decades early", I mean "at least x decades early". I did not mean "it has probably not happened". The singularity is not guaranteed to happen and with a high confidence has not already happened.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > at least not in significant numbers That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales. The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.
  - slipframe 5y ago
    I'm thinking that if you sent a dozen people to Alpha Centari, it wouldn't make any difference because that is under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony that, in turn, sends out similar expeditions in the future. Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony Such a small group of people, armed with current genetic engineering and future artificial means of reproduction, could bring with them enough genetic diversity and reproductive capacity to reach colonizing scale. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one. Despite the first part of my reply, this point about minimum activation energy is relevant to a lot of contexts, from escaping poverty to switching careers, from getting fit to overcoming medical conditions. This is a pretty good analogy that I might use in the future.
      - slipframe 5y ago
        I think genetics is actually the easy part. A few dozen or so people, selected for strong health, probably contain enough genetic material in their groins to start a colony. More would doubtlessly be better, but I think such things have been done by humans on earth before. Frozen eggs/sperm and women willing to be surrogate mothers help a lot too; you wouldn't need artificial womb technology, necessarily. The hard part I think is "playing factorio IRL" on a planet we weren't evolved to cope with. Bootstrapping industry sufficient even to create additional shelters would be very challenging. Maybe we could practice this on Mars.
- throwaaskjdfh 5y ago
  I suspect the Great Filter is that sufficiently intelligent life has no interest in expansion, and doesn't communicate at all.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Only stable if the whole society can force itself to not even want to expand. If 1 per billion wants to expand, out of a population of 8 billion, you have 8 expansionists. If each of them breaks the social conventions and have twice as many offspring as the sustainers (and if the desire is heritable), after 30 generations they’re now equal in number to the sustainers. Cambridge University is in the order of 30 generations old. https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_provides_an_answer https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_p...
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. I'm not sure I agree. For the most part of humanity, we have been at war, murdering each other, enslaving each other, and numerous other atrocities... Including nearly a nuclear war. The reduction in in person communication is due to the increase in global communication... Which I think is a net benefit. Social media is a bump in the road, and my hope is that we'll overcome the likes of Twitter soon.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Text based communication is the cause. Not social media. Anytime I go to a bar, people are paying attention their friends if something is going on, watching a band, or on their phone. Stranger interaction declines heavily the more people that are there. I've noticed this since the advent of texting. Not since the advent of social media. It's absurd to me honestly that someone would prioritize someone on their phone over the person who took the time and effort to physically be present and engage with them that day. >I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking I do as well. But it makes me wonder now, if people always have been flakey and unwilling to hang out with new people. I swear when I was a kid, asking someone to hang out or do something was easy, even if you met them one time. It's almost as if unlimited media and instant communication halts people from pursuing anything with other people unless they have something they dont.
- ido66667 5y ago
  We are, to put it simply, too entertained with our technologies to expend the initial effort to "touch some grass", meet people in real life. But we still need connection with people, so we invented technological tools that allow us to quickly and easily get in touch with others. Although the quality and satisfaction we get from this form of communication are much lower, it requires much less initial effort and hassle, so we accept it.
kingsuper20 5y ago
>I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. You know, that could be. I'll present a meta-hypothesis. Diversity is generally dangerous and global communications/global movement drives everyone closer to hazardous behavior. Without the filtering of slow tempos, things get sporty.
akomtu 5y ago
Perhaps social networks need to reinvent clubs? That's what makes HN valuable: it's a club with like-minded members and because their number is small, your voice gets heard. FB, on the other hand, is a club that admits anyone, so it's not really a club, and because it's a stadium packed with random folks, your voice doesn't matter.

dantheman 5y ago

There's no reason to not do that; in fact its easier than ever to invite and plan things.

tayo42 5y ago
yeah I don't get that point, its not like people are deciding to scroll facebook instead of going to their friends bbq. maybe you could make the point that people pick activites for how good of a social media post it would make. But that's not even what this article is about, its discussing the spread of misinformation and social media being full of low information content.

slipframe 5y ago

I think that ubiquitous global communication is the "Great Filter" that prevents intelligent civilizations from colonizing the universe. Before any intelligent species can hope to tackle a problem like that, they invent something like the internet. And once they've invented an internet, they become addicted to low latency communication and will never stray far from it, at least not in significant numbers. Even one year of latency becomes utterly intolerable once an intelligent species has been using an internet for a few generations.

birdyrooster 5y ago
Humans will never make it, but our computers will. The internet is the singularity now.
- bckr 5y ago
  This comment is probably about 3 or 4 decades too early.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened.
    - bckr 5y ago
      > You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened. This is the inverse of the intended interpretation. By "probably x decades early", I mean "at least x decades early". I did not mean "it has probably not happened". The singularity is not guaranteed to happen and with a high confidence has not already happened.
marcosdumay 5y ago
> at least not in significant numbers That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales. The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.
- slipframe 5y ago
  I'm thinking that if you sent a dozen people to Alpha Centari, it wouldn't make any difference because that is under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony that, in turn, sends out similar expeditions in the future. Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony Such a small group of people, armed with current genetic engineering and future artificial means of reproduction, could bring with them enough genetic diversity and reproductive capacity to reach colonizing scale. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one. Despite the first part of my reply, this point about minimum activation energy is relevant to a lot of contexts, from escaping poverty to switching careers, from getting fit to overcoming medical conditions. This is a pretty good analogy that I might use in the future.
    - slipframe 5y ago
      I think genetics is actually the easy part. A few dozen or so people, selected for strong health, probably contain enough genetic material in their groins to start a colony. More would doubtlessly be better, but I think such things have been done by humans on earth before. Frozen eggs/sperm and women willing to be surrogate mothers help a lot too; you wouldn't need artificial womb technology, necessarily. The hard part I think is "playing factorio IRL" on a planet we weren't evolved to cope with. Bootstrapping industry sufficient even to create additional shelters would be very challenging. Maybe we could practice this on Mars.
throwaaskjdfh 5y ago
I suspect the Great Filter is that sufficiently intelligent life has no interest in expansion, and doesn't communicate at all.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Only stable if the whole society can force itself to not even want to expand. If 1 per billion wants to expand, out of a population of 8 billion, you have 8 expansionists. If each of them breaks the social conventions and have twice as many offspring as the sustainers (and if the desire is heritable), after 30 generations they’re now equal in number to the sustainers. Cambridge University is in the order of 30 generations old. https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_provides_an_answer https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_p...

CodeGlitch 5y ago

> I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. I'm not sure I agree. For the most part of humanity, we have been at war, murdering each other, enslaving each other, and numerous other atrocities... Including nearly a nuclear war. The reduction in in person communication is due to the increase in global communication... Which I think is a net benefit. Social media is a bump in the road, and my hope is that we'll overcome the likes of Twitter soon.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Text based communication is the cause. Not social media. Anytime I go to a bar, people are paying attention their friends if something is going on, watching a band, or on their phone. Stranger interaction declines heavily the more people that are there. I've noticed this since the advent of texting. Not since the advent of social media. It's absurd to me honestly that someone would prioritize someone on their phone over the person who took the time and effort to physically be present and engage with them that day. >I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking I do as well. But it makes me wonder now, if people always have been flakey and unwilling to hang out with new people. I swear when I was a kid, asking someone to hang out or do something was easy, even if you met them one time. It's almost as if unlimited media and instant communication halts people from pursuing anything with other people unless they have something they dont.

ido66667 5y ago
We are, to put it simply, too entertained with our technologies to expend the initial effort to "touch some grass", meet people in real life. But we still need connection with people, so we invented technological tools that allow us to quickly and easily get in touch with others. Although the quality and satisfaction we get from this form of communication are much lower, it requires much less initial effort and hassle, so we accept it.

kingsuper20 5y ago

>I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. You know, that could be. I'll present a meta-hypothesis. Diversity is generally dangerous and global communications/global movement drives everyone closer to hazardous behavior. Without the filtering of slow tempos, things get sporty.

akomtu 5y ago

Perhaps social networks need to reinvent clubs? That's what makes HN valuable: it's a club with like-minded members and because their number is small, your voice gets heard. FB, on the other hand, is a club that admits anyone, so it's not really a club, and because it's a stadium packed with random folks, your voice doesn't matter.