5 ms·

I don't dispute we've seen quality improvements in some areas. Hiking gear is a complete triviality though. Nothing stopped people from enjoying hiking 50 years

by trgn 4y ago

I don't dispute we've seen quality improvements in some areas. Hiking gear is a complete triviality though. Nothing stopped people from enjoying hiking 50 years ago with bad gear, and the qualitative experience of camping, "enjoying the great outdoors", communing with nature, is not better today than it was then. What has improved is maybe the convenience. The real shift is in our core surroundings, what real should matter, and there quality and diversity has completely plummeted (homes, furniture, art, ...). Outdoors people generally celebrate the inherent value of large biodiversity, but seeing diversity in human expression completely collapse is suddenly "convergence". That is what is meant by submission to the machine. Simplicity, uniformity is desirable from a machine perspective (e.g. easier to operate simple machine, easier to operate simple bureaucracy). Those values humans now have internalized as aspirational as well.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> Nothing stopped people from enjoying hiking 50 years ago with bad gea we can't prove it's the gear, and it is likely not to be the dominant factor, but vastly more people do in fact participate in this sor of activity today than they did 50 years, so i would argue that actually, gear did play a role in "stopping people from enjoying hiking". Not "all people", but some people. however, i feel that you're overly focused on the details of my examples. i could have picked dozens of hundreds of examples of where the things we have available today (where notable convergence in design has occured) are just better. i don't feel that you've answered my question about you would differentiate the two processes, and instead have tried to use the "outdoor gear" example as a way to simply come up with a reiteration of your initial claim.
- trgn 4y ago
  maybe it's tautological. convergence is a euphemism for the downstream effects of prioritizing efficiency and simplicity due to mass manufacturing.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    convergence can be that. but convergence can also just be ... convergence. People can actually agree that there's a better/best way to do something independent of other motivations.

by trgn 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> Nothing stopped people from enjoying hiking 50 years ago with bad gea we can't prove it's the gear, and it is likely not to be the dominant factor, but vastly more people do in fact participate in this sor of activity today than they did 50 years, so i would argue that actually, gear did play a role in "stopping people from enjoying hiking". Not "all people", but some people. however, i feel that you're overly focused on the details of my examples. i could have picked dozens of hundreds of examples of where the things we have available today (where notable convergence in design has occured) are just better. i don't feel that you've answered my question about you would differentiate the two processes, and instead have tried to use the "outdoor gear" example as a way to simply come up with a reiteration of your initial claim.

trgn 4y ago
maybe it's tautological. convergence is a euphemism for the downstream effects of prioritizing efficiency and simplicity due to mass manufacturing.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  convergence can be that. but convergence can also just be ... convergence. People can actually agree that there's a better/best way to do something independent of other motivations.