4 ms·
Washing Machines did not save time! This is because with the advent of these machines also our hygiene habits changed. We wash a lot more than before, and ther
by holri 14y ago
Washing Machines did not save time!
This is because with the advent of these machines also our hygiene habits changed. We wash a lot more than before, and therefore there is no time saving but cleaner clothes.
The same is true for computers. They did not save time, they changed the way we treat information. We have a lot more than before to process.
- norswap 14y agoSo either save time or improve hygiene. A win in either case, no?
- holri 14y agoIt depends. There are rumors that allegies of our days are caused by exaggerated hygiene. You have to wait of few hundred years to see all the consequences of technology in retrospect.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoThere are rumors that the lack of infectious disease in modern society is also caused by exaggerated hygiene.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoDepends. People smell better though, but then we were probably desensitized to that before anyways.
- coldtea 14y ago>Washing Machines did not save time! This is because with the advent of these machines also our hygiene habits changed. We wash a lot more than before, and therefore there is no time saving but cleaner clothes. That's not true. The ratio is not at all the same. Except if you take something like 17th century hygiene habits (and for the poor classes, at that) and compare it to modern day habits. But we had the frequent clothes washing far before the advent of the washing machine. Not to mention that what you said could also be solved with bigger washing machines and more clothing (so that you can still wash at longer intervals, but you have stuff to wear in between).
- arh68 14y agoSurely you don't mean to refute Hans Rosling's testimony that his mother had more time to read to him? I think you have an interesting viewpoint. If these technologies don't actually save any time, it follows that we spend as much doing X before the technology than after. So 4 hrs/wk washing 1 loads/wk + washing machine => 4 hrs/wk washing 4 loads/wk. What if you reverse this and apply it to computers? I spend maybe 2-3 hours in Excel every week. If I were born 100 years earlier, would it follow that I'd also spend 2-3 hrs/wk making spreadsheets, albeit at a much slower work pace? It seems doubtful. I've got only a few dozen sheets, tops. Lots of time spent in Excel is tweaking, making things line up / look right, updating kludges, etc. Busywork, basically. Maybe this is my fault; the 'math' tells me I should have lots of sheets, but I get caught up doing busywork on this machine that's supposed to automate the whole ordeal. What a scam!
- holri 14y agoAnother example: The advent of the car or plane did not reduce the live time spent on traveling but expanded the ways. People and their priorities and motivations for giving a slice of their live time to a particular kind of activity do not change greatly because of technology.
- PhineasRex 14y agoHave you ever flown across the country?
- holri 14y agoSince some inhabitants of one country think their country is the world I can imagine which one of the 194 countries you think of. The answer therefore is yes.
- fractallyte 14y agoRegarding spreadsheets: Excel (and similar) is a great toy for doodling, but for serious work one would want the 'real thing'. In the 80s there was Javelin Plus, then Lotus Improv in the 90s. Now there's Quantrix. With endemic spreadsheet errors (since the 80s), and far better solutions being ignored (also since the 80s), there's certainly something to rant about! ;-)