4 ms·

IMO the real problem here isn't the technology itself, but cultivating an unhealthy relationship with it and not using it maturely The most interesting thing i

IMO the real problem here isn't the technology itself, but cultivating an unhealthy relationship with it and not using it maturely The most interesting thing in this article to me is the classist accusation. I wonder if this luddite trend is just some sort of counter signaling, where if rich kids decide to not use smartphones it's provocative (and they get flip phones from parents on a whim), but if poor kids don't it's because they're poor

trgn 4y ago
> the real problem isn't the technology itself I very much disagree with this. We like to think that technology is value neutral, and we, as Olympian gods, are just applying it in good or bad judgment. Technology (the actual material thing) shapes the world around itself, it creates the conditions of its use _in absence_ of our judgement. The very existence of a bleepy bloopy thing that fits in a pocket, which constantly grabs your attention with gossipy, antagonizing content. That _thing_ in itself creates the nurturing conditions for phenomena like cyberbullying, meme-addiction, declining attention spans, political polarization... Another example; the very existence of power tools created the aesthetic sensibilities where we aspire to large expanses of perfectly trimmed bushes and leafless virginal lawns. Our aesthetic desires did not proceed the technology. It is the technology that engendered it. Let's run down more: easy-to-obtain guns, heavy and fast-accelerating cars, cheap mass-produced food, disposable furniture and living arrangements ... They all shape the world (and our minds, our relations to others) in _their image_. We can be equal slave to the machine as well as master to the machine. Modernism is the submission to this slavery. Humanism is the celebration of our mastery. Now answer the question; do we live in modernist dystopia, or humanist utopia? A leading question to be sure, but I reckon the contrast is instructive. Technology sometimes _is_ the problem itself. Fixing the problem, in many cases, will mean forceful rejection of this technology, rather than just finding the correct application of it.

trgn 4y ago

> the real problem isn't the technology itself I very much disagree with this. We like to think that technology is value neutral, and we, as Olympian gods, are just applying it in good or bad judgment. Technology (the actual material thing) shapes the world around itself, it creates the conditions of its use _in absence_ of our judgement. The very existence of a bleepy bloopy thing that fits in a pocket, which constantly grabs your attention with gossipy, antagonizing content. That _thing_ in itself creates the nurturing conditions for phenomena like cyberbullying, meme-addiction, declining attention spans, political polarization... Another example; the very existence of power tools created the aesthetic sensibilities where we aspire to large expanses of perfectly trimmed bushes and leafless virginal lawns. Our aesthetic desires did not proceed the technology. It is the technology that engendered it. Let's run down more: easy-to-obtain guns, heavy and fast-accelerating cars, cheap mass-produced food, disposable furniture and living arrangements ... They all shape the world (and our minds, our relations to others) in _their image_. We can be equal slave to the machine as well as master to the machine. Modernism is the submission to this slavery. Humanism is the celebration of our mastery. Now answer the question; do we live in modernist dystopia, or humanist utopia? A leading question to be sure, but I reckon the contrast is instructive. Technology sometimes _is_ the problem itself. Fixing the problem, in many cases, will mean forceful rejection of this technology, rather than just finding the correct application of it.