3 ms·
Taking your example of visiting a park: due to technology (having a device like a smartphone), I can arrive in a town and immediately see visually in which dire
by seabass-labrax 3y ago
Taking your example of visiting a park: due to technology (having a device like a smartphone), I can arrive in a town and immediately see visually in which direction to walk so that I get to a park, having never set foot in the place before (I literally did this yesterday). Without that technology, this would only be possible after finding a shop which sells maps of the locality. Which is the more consumerist situation?
- kibwen 3y agoBut phones aren't free, they have both significant up-front and recurring expenses. Trading "I need to buy a map" for "I need to buy a phone so I can look at a map" isn't a straight win. And at the same time, before phones, every municipality had a place with free maps of major landmarks, precisely because they want to encourage tourism without forcing people to buy a local map. The situation of needing to own a phone in order to participate in society is similar to how here in the US we require people to own cars to participate in society; it is a financial burden whose effects are felt disproportionately by those who are less wealthy.
- dewey 3y agoWhich resulted in a lot of paper maps being produced and thrown away, so not everything only has upsides. Just like camping ground guides that came out yearly, street maps that had to be re-bought every few years etc.
- kibwen 3y agoIf we're going to continue the comparison, how many phones are produced and thrown away yearly? I'm not trying to demonize phones, I'm trying to make us conscious of the phone-shaped blind spot in our collective consciousness. Phones aren't zero-impact.