9 ms·

I’m going to suggest people try washing their clothes by hand for one week and see how they feel about the technology convenience versus speed argument.

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
Heh. Only two comments here so far, mine and yours, both making an identical point.
- schneems 3y ago
  Two posts about washing machines, one Greg LeMond quote. And my post about washing machines with a Greg LeMond quote.
gcanyon 3y ago
I agree with your point, but a washing machine does make things faster: it takes maybe five minutes total for me to wash and dry my clothes with a machine, while it would take at least ten times as long to do it by hand. That's faster and more convenient.
- schneems 3y ago
  I mentioned in another comment about this. While it’s faster and more convenient, that convenience might not necessarily convert into more joy or ease in your life.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    If someone gets more free time and chooses not to convert it into joy or ease, then that's up to the person, not whatever object or action saved the time.
    - schneems 3y ago
      I recommend the paper: Do Artifacts Have Politics. You can find it for free online if you search the title. It’s a classic HCI paper. Even if you disagree with everything I write, it’s worth reading. The paper asks the question (that you asserted). Essentially: divorced from creator or user intent, can an artifact (or technology) influence how it is used (its politics)? They make very compelling arguments that, yes, the mere existence of a technology (regardless of how people chose to use it) shapes and influences us. So while you might be technically correct, that it’s up to the individual: the larger system (and by extension the technology) does in fact influence us. It’s like the saying that the law applies equally because it prohibits both paupers and princes from stealing bread. It’s technically true, but it (intentionally, to prove a point) misses the point: that the system is set up so no prince would need to steal bread. In Code 2.0 (Laurence Lessig, creator of the Creative Commons) makes a point to say that a variety of things influence our behavior: markets, norms, laws, and architecture. New technology falls under “architecture” in this categorization. Technology will exert itself on your behavior and give you new choices, but those choices cannot be divorced from the other legs: laws, norms, and markets.
  - QuercusMax 3y ago
    It also means that's it's much more feasible to own and wash large quantities of clothing. If I have to hand-wash every single piece of clothing, I may think much harder about whether I want to buy more items, and how much I will re-wear before washing. In the past clothing was very expensive and people didn't own many outfits unless they were extremely rich. Advances in technology have both changed our access to clothing and also its maintenance.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  But what if the act of manually washing your clothes was actually better for you (in terms of mental/physical health) than the activities you do instead while the machine's running? Not to mention the negative externalities involved in the manufacture, running and disposal of the machines involved.
ryeights 3y ago
This comment misses the point of the article. I.e., the monotony once required in hand-washing clothes (say by a housewife) has not been converted into free time, but rather converted into a different form of monotony (parents earning dual incomes)
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Really? The standard of living is so much higher now I cannot imagine how these two situations are equivalent. You can live the old single income lifestyle if you so desire.
  - spiderice 3y ago
    Not really. Sure, you can survive with a single income. But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. Further, nobody has much free time today, despite technology doing most of the things that we used to spend our time on. Instead of technology giving everyone free time, everyone just had to work more in order to get the same lifestyle. Edit: though yes, quality of life is better in many ways.
    - wilg 3y ago
      Prove it!
    - em500 3y ago
      Across the US population, people spend 3.5 hours per day on work and 5.2 hours on leisure and sports[1]. Remember that a substantial part of the population does not work much (children, students, retirees, unemployed), so it's untrue that nobody has much free time today. Even the full-time employed spend on average 3.27 hours per day on leisure and sports on weekdays and 5.94 hours per day on weekends and holidays[2]. Checking the same survey from 20 years ago[3], average work has decreased a bit (was 3.69 hours per day) and average leisure and sports increased a bit (was 5.11 hours per day). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm [3] https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf
W0lfEagle 3y ago
My guess is that it would probably feel quite cathartic to unplug from all those digital distractions and just use your hands on a physical task for a while for many people not used to doing things like this. If however your washing machine breaks and you need to wash by hand AND do all the other hundreds of tasks filling up your time it will probably feel like a massive waste of time.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  When people washed clothes by hand they had far fewer items of clothing.
  - whywhywouldyou 3y ago
    So not only do you gain a meditative and rewarding practice of washing something by hand, it sounds like it incentivizes you to cut down on frivolous spending on clothing as well.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    No, what they did is wear the same clothes a couple more days. Just because I have a fancy suit doesn't mean I wear it -> get it dirty. They also had fewer clothes because they weren't mass produced.
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
I've done it, people still do it, it's fine. Takes a little extra time, but that's it.
oldbbsnickname 3y ago
Then they're all going in the tub with cold water and Woollite. Wringing each and finding somewhere to dry them is a pain. Honestly, I half do this already because half of my clothes are dry cleaning optional but cold water mechanical wash compatible while being dryer incompatible.
thsksbd 3y ago
If you go outside your comfort zone and talk to people it isn't too hard to find people that grew up in 19th century like lives. Ive met several, including my wife. One professor I knew never took his tenure seriously. He was always out doing fun things. When I asked him why he never seemed worried about it he answered: "why would I be worried? If they don't give me tenure I'll get back to go back to <home country> and become a shepherd again!" He got his tenure. Turns out he was very productive compared to his pampered colleagues.
manicennui 3y ago
The fact that some technology does in fact make life easier does not mean that it all does.

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago

Heh. Only two comments here so far, mine and yours, both making an identical point.

schneems 3y ago
Two posts about washing machines, one Greg LeMond quote. And my post about washing machines with a Greg LeMond quote.

gcanyon 3y ago

I agree with your point, but a washing machine does make things faster: it takes maybe five minutes total for me to wash and dry my clothes with a machine, while it would take at least ten times as long to do it by hand. That's faster and more convenient.

schneems 3y ago
I mentioned in another comment about this. While it’s faster and more convenient, that convenience might not necessarily convert into more joy or ease in your life.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  If someone gets more free time and chooses not to convert it into joy or ease, then that's up to the person, not whatever object or action saved the time.
  - schneems 3y ago
    I recommend the paper: Do Artifacts Have Politics. You can find it for free online if you search the title. It’s a classic HCI paper. Even if you disagree with everything I write, it’s worth reading. The paper asks the question (that you asserted). Essentially: divorced from creator or user intent, can an artifact (or technology) influence how it is used (its politics)? They make very compelling arguments that, yes, the mere existence of a technology (regardless of how people chose to use it) shapes and influences us. So while you might be technically correct, that it’s up to the individual: the larger system (and by extension the technology) does in fact influence us. It’s like the saying that the law applies equally because it prohibits both paupers and princes from stealing bread. It’s technically true, but it (intentionally, to prove a point) misses the point: that the system is set up so no prince would need to steal bread. In Code 2.0 (Laurence Lessig, creator of the Creative Commons) makes a point to say that a variety of things influence our behavior: markets, norms, laws, and architecture. New technology falls under “architecture” in this categorization. Technology will exert itself on your behavior and give you new choices, but those choices cannot be divorced from the other legs: laws, norms, and markets.
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  It also means that's it's much more feasible to own and wash large quantities of clothing. If I have to hand-wash every single piece of clothing, I may think much harder about whether I want to buy more items, and how much I will re-wear before washing. In the past clothing was very expensive and people didn't own many outfits unless they were extremely rich. Advances in technology have both changed our access to clothing and also its maintenance.
wizofaus 3y ago
But what if the act of manually washing your clothes was actually better for you (in terms of mental/physical health) than the activities you do instead while the machine's running? Not to mention the negative externalities involved in the manufacture, running and disposal of the machines involved.

ryeights 3y ago

This comment misses the point of the article. I.e., the monotony once required in hand-washing clothes (say by a housewife) has not been converted into free time, but rather converted into a different form of monotony (parents earning dual incomes)

renewiltord 3y ago
Really? The standard of living is so much higher now I cannot imagine how these two situations are equivalent. You can live the old single income lifestyle if you so desire.
- spiderice 3y ago
  Not really. Sure, you can survive with a single income. But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. Further, nobody has much free time today, despite technology doing most of the things that we used to spend our time on. Instead of technology giving everyone free time, everyone just had to work more in order to get the same lifestyle. Edit: though yes, quality of life is better in many ways.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Prove it!
  - em500 3y ago
    Across the US population, people spend 3.5 hours per day on work and 5.2 hours on leisure and sports[1]. Remember that a substantial part of the population does not work much (children, students, retirees, unemployed), so it's untrue that nobody has much free time today. Even the full-time employed spend on average 3.27 hours per day on leisure and sports on weekdays and 5.94 hours per day on weekends and holidays[2]. Checking the same survey from 20 years ago[3], average work has decreased a bit (was 3.69 hours per day) and average leisure and sports increased a bit (was 5.11 hours per day). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm [3] https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf

W0lfEagle 3y ago

My guess is that it would probably feel quite cathartic to unplug from all those digital distractions and just use your hands on a physical task for a while for many people not used to doing things like this. If however your washing machine breaks and you need to wash by hand AND do all the other hundreds of tasks filling up your time it will probably feel like a massive waste of time.

SoftTalker 3y ago
When people washed clothes by hand they had far fewer items of clothing.
- whywhywouldyou 3y ago
  So not only do you gain a meditative and rewarding practice of washing something by hand, it sounds like it incentivizes you to cut down on frivolous spending on clothing as well.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  No, what they did is wear the same clothes a couple more days. Just because I have a fancy suit doesn't mean I wear it -> get it dirty. They also had fewer clothes because they weren't mass produced.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

I've done it, people still do it, it's fine. Takes a little extra time, but that's it.

oldbbsnickname 3y ago

Then they're all going in the tub with cold water and Woollite. Wringing each and finding somewhere to dry them is a pain. Honestly, I half do this already because half of my clothes are dry cleaning optional but cold water mechanical wash compatible while being dryer incompatible.

thsksbd 3y ago

If you go outside your comfort zone and talk to people it isn't too hard to find people that grew up in 19th century like lives. Ive met several, including my wife. One professor I knew never took his tenure seriously. He was always out doing fun things. When I asked him why he never seemed worried about it he answered: "why would I be worried? If they don't give me tenure I'll get back to go back to <home country> and become a shepherd again!" He got his tenure. Turns out he was very productive compared to his pampered colleagues.

manicennui 3y ago

The fact that some technology does in fact make life easier does not mean that it all does.