3 ms·
> I'm not sure what the solution is, but I wish that smartphones were not seen as a default necessity for everybody. They are not. But that mythology, that t
by nonrandomstring 4y ago
> I'm not sure what the solution is, but I wish that smartphones were
not seen as a default necessity for everybody.
They are not. But that mythology, that they are, is central to the
problem. I just posted on almost exactly this point in another thread
[1] that I'll paste here;
> (From OP[1]) Ultimately, if the technology is not serving you, you
have the choice to not use it.
This is worthy of a book or PhD research project in itself. The person
who states this in terms that resonate with me with is Vint Cerf. I
will quote a little but also paraphrase him in my own way by saying;
"At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a
living. But the important right in that case was the right to make
a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a
right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put
it. Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself" [2]
As I see it, if we are to respect the more fundamental human rights of
"life, liberty and security of person" then the greater human right
may be NOT to be connected to the internet. It is freedom from
technologies at least insofar as we are free to manage our own affairs
and engagement.
Other than the European "Right to be forgotten" and legislation
protecting us from surveillance and tracking, I'm not aware of any
popular formulations of this general principle other than Vint Cerf's.
Right now I think people are being forced to stable horses in their
backyards, at the behest of landowners, and under the false premise
that you need one for work.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31216377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31216377
- bluGill 4y agoAt one very short time, in only a few places was a horse needed. Most of the world used oxen or buffalo (not bison) for farm tasks not horses. In the American west a horse was needed to pull a plow because a horse moves just enough faster that a steel plow work. If you didn't need that speed a horse was not useful. Horses were also useful for knights, but not most people in Europe. Herders in Mongolia and other planes areas made good use of horses as well. None of this translated to more than a small part of the world though. We have a romantic view of the cowboy, and just before the mass migration from farms to the city happened horses started taking over so we think of them as the backbone of the farm, but they generally were not.
- mistrial9 4y agoyou completely miss the point that for many, horses were for daily transportation.. to and from work, the store, school, supply houses, meeting halls, civic participation.. all kinds of things
- bluGill 4y agoNo they were not. Too expensive. Farmers used them because they had them for the plow anyway, and the rich used them. As did a few travelers, but most people walked. For long distances the human on foot beats the horse. A horse is useful either if you have a lot to haul, or you have a system of trading so you can always have a fresh horse to ride.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoGuys, sorry to reign in the discussion before anyone else jumps on the wagon but no need to get saddled with trotting out a full equestrian history. It's just a metaphor, right? Forget about the horses already. :) (Sorry for the tacky puns, I cant keep this up furlong...I'm knackered)
- mistrial9 4y agothis is interesting and there are many times and corners of the world.. so right, agree.. but I meant to include all things horse-drawn.. carts and buggies and all.. but sure, lots of people did not have access to a horse-something often times