3 ms·

Yes, provided one acknowledges that we survived not having 24/7 communications almost everywhere, but others did not. Same as saying that before the nanny stat

by a4isms 4y ago

Yes, provided one acknowledges that we survived not having 24/7 communications almost everywhere, but others did not. Same as saying that before the nanny state passed laws requiring children to wear bicycle helmets, we not only rode bikes without helmets, we tried to emulate Evil Knievel by jumping our bikes off ramps leaning against rickety wooden produce crates. Yes, we survived. But I knew a boy who did not. I am not telling anyone that they have a moral imperative to carry a cell phone everywhere. But I am saying that just because we (I am sixty) grew up without such technology and turned out all right, does not mean there is no risk.

justinpombrio 4y ago
> Yes, we survived. But I knew a boy who did not. I'm sorry. What happened to him that a cell phone would have prevented? Medical emergency far from land lines, took too long to reach 911?
FpUser 4y ago
>"But I am saying that just because we (I am sixty) grew up without such technology and turned out all right, does not mean there is no risk." I am 61 and I understand that yes there is a risk. But maybe this is the risk worth taking. As a kid I walked to school and back every day and generally much of my life at that point and later on was spent outside. I am now looking at my 8 year old grandson, all the gizmos he has, access to information and being constantly accompanied by adult for security. I love him and sort of feel very sorry. I think no fucking way I would trade the type of childhood freedom I had to the one most of modern kids are having.
aksss 4y ago
Survival here is being taken too literally. We were able to conduct our affairs (business and personal) without 24/7 access to communications because the world didn't assume its availability. Now the world assumes its availability. So now there are tangible risks to your business and personal affairs by not being aware of evolving circumstances in real time, but if you manage expectations appropriately and set up your life "correctly" the risks of being six hours behind the curve are rarely too important unless you're meeting other people for lunch/dinner (risk of venue changes). Despite our social training, the "news" is mostly unimportant. I think what you're getting at with the helmet business is survivorship bias - the fact that I did meth recreationally in the 90's and came out with no bad side effects doesn't mean meth is okay for everyone, that sort of thing. But with 24/7 comms it's kind of a different dynamic of changing expectations en masse rather than a question of beating the odds.

by a4isms 4y ago

justinpombrio 4y ago

> Yes, we survived. But I knew a boy who did not. I'm sorry. What happened to him that a cell phone would have prevented? Medical emergency far from land lines, took too long to reach 911?

FpUser 4y ago

>"But I am saying that just because we (I am sixty) grew up without such technology and turned out all right, does not mean there is no risk." I am 61 and I understand that yes there is a risk. But maybe this is the risk worth taking. As a kid I walked to school and back every day and generally much of my life at that point and later on was spent outside. I am now looking at my 8 year old grandson, all the gizmos he has, access to information and being constantly accompanied by adult for security. I love him and sort of feel very sorry. I think no fucking way I would trade the type of childhood freedom I had to the one most of modern kids are having.

aksss 4y ago

Survival here is being taken too literally. We were able to conduct our affairs (business and personal) without 24/7 access to communications because the world didn't assume its availability. Now the world assumes its availability. So now there are tangible risks to your business and personal affairs by not being aware of evolving circumstances in real time, but if you manage expectations appropriately and set up your life "correctly" the risks of being six hours behind the curve are rarely too important unless you're meeting other people for lunch/dinner (risk of venue changes). Despite our social training, the "news" is mostly unimportant. I think what you're getting at with the helmet business is survivorship bias - the fact that I did meth recreationally in the 90's and came out with no bad side effects doesn't mean meth is okay for everyone, that sort of thing. But with 24/7 comms it's kind of a different dynamic of changing expectations en masse rather than a question of beating the odds.