4 ms·

I don't like it either (hell, most of us here on HN won't like it... we love to tinker and break things and get under the hood), but that doesn't mean it's not

by alex_c 15y ago

I don't like it either (hell, most of us here on HN won't like it... we love to tinker and break things and get under the hood), but that doesn't mean it's not the most likely direction. You describe it as a struggle between totalitarian and democratic ideologies, with all the moral and ethical implications. I think it's really about a third, much more powerful force: giving people what they want. This is tangential, but I think explains what I mean better than I could: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/ http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-...

mcantelon 15y ago
>I think it's really about a third, much more powerful force: giving people what they want. What people want depends, to a large degree, on their level of education, what they're exposed to, and what leaders and the media tell them they should want. It will be interesting seeing how pop computing and lock-down devices do globally in the long-term.
gbog 15y ago
Thanks for the link. I am no historian but I have the impression that Human history would show that Orwell's fears are more grounded, as the totalitarian world he described has actually been implemented for real in many occurences, far away in the past (maybe under Pharaos? certainly under Qinshihuang) and closer (USSR, PRC). It is possible that Huxley's fears are a bit less likely to happen for real. Maybe Roman empire had a pinch of it (panem et circenses) but even then roman people (the free ones) had their freedom, and some used it to write books, create things, etc. However I am extremely opposed to entertainment feeding, I don't watch TV, nor do I read magazines, so I agree with Huxley (and you?). But I don't think it is closely related to my impression that some people go too far in the "don't say yes to all" direction. The good reason for tool creators to say no is not because they know better how the tool should be used, it is because they know that saying yes to request A would forbid the tool to be used in ways B and C, and other unprospected ways. Saying no is ok when it actually opens new doors.

by alex_c 15y ago

mcantelon 15y ago

>I think it's really about a third, much more powerful force: giving people what they want. What people want depends, to a large degree, on their level of education, what they're exposed to, and what leaders and the media tell them they should want. It will be interesting seeing how pop computing and lock-down devices do globally in the long-term.

gbog 15y ago

Thanks for the link. I am no historian but I have the impression that Human history would show that Orwell's fears are more grounded, as the totalitarian world he described has actually been implemented for real in many occurences, far away in the past (maybe under Pharaos? certainly under Qinshihuang) and closer (USSR, PRC). It is possible that Huxley's fears are a bit less likely to happen for real. Maybe Roman empire had a pinch of it (panem et circenses) but even then roman people (the free ones) had their freedom, and some used it to write books, create things, etc. However I am extremely opposed to entertainment feeding, I don't watch TV, nor do I read magazines, so I agree with Huxley (and you?). But I don't think it is closely related to my impression that some people go too far in the "don't say yes to all" direction. The good reason for tool creators to say no is not because they know better how the tool should be used, it is because they know that saying yes to request A would forbid the tool to be used in ways B and C, and other unprospected ways. Saying no is ok when it actually opens new doors.