4 ms·

> Facebook, Twitter, reddit, the Internet itself, the iPhone, and on and on and on—most people dismissed these things as incremental or trivial when they first

> Facebook, Twitter, reddit, the Internet itself, the iPhone, and on and on and on—most people dismissed these things as incremental or trivial when they first came out. With the exception of the internet itself, I think they still are. Are we really that much happier with our social media and iPhones than we are without them? I think that for the most part, the answer is no. Most use is superficial and procrastination rather than meaningful connection with people. Check out The Progress Paradox by Gregg Easterbrook. He talks about how we've made all of this "progress" in our standard of living, but that it isn't actually making us happier. However, I agree with the central idea that "toys" are often dismissed prematurely.

finishingmove 12y ago
Spot on. Capitalism generally is all about the illusion of progress, rather than real progress.
- cglace 12y ago
  And what is real progress? Do you define it?
  - candu 12y ago
    More importantly: can you measure it?
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      It's harder, though it is correlated with profit, so that's why we could be using it as a proxy and get away with it for so long.
      - pinkyand 12y ago
        There's a long debate whether profit correlate with value. The simple example the rise in GDP due to car accidents.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        It correlates in a way; that's the basic assumption of capitalism and the reason why companies work. But it does not correlate perfectly; many would say it doesn't do it very well, and I'd hazard a guess that profit and value are becoming more and more disconnected from each other.
facepalm 12y ago
If I am cured of some nasty illness it certainly makes me happier. I think Gregg Easterbrook is full of shit.
- pinkyand 12y ago
  It's about the bigger picture since "progress" brings also negative stuff like living in cramped boxes instead of in nature. Are in general western people happier than inedegenious people without access to said medicine ? Not sure , but it doesn't seem so.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. As for cramped boxes: is the population explosion due to progress? Maybe better health care and food? On the other hand, also better contraceptives, and the biggest population growth seems to happen in places with less progress. And with modern transport, at least you can get to nature at times. Also, people flock to the cities because they have no good opportunities in the countryside (look at China). If they wouldn't go to the cities, perhaps they would just starve, or start wars with their neighbors. Living in nature undisturbed Thoreau style is actually a great luxury.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. Two things. 1. You say "short and happy" life, but you can argue for "long and happy" - people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do. 2. It might not be survivor bias, there are lots of records and arguments suggesting that living hunter-gatherer lifestyle is much, much happier than what we have today. There's a nice article elaborating on that in case of Comanches [0]. An excerpt: So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant: All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives. Note the second paragraph. [0] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html
josu 12y ago
Twitter and Facebook have changed the world; I don't have a doubt about it. And not only in a micro scale, also in a macro level. I have gone from writing letters to my distant friends, to writing them emails, to writing them facebook messages. And believe it's much easier to keep in touch with friends now that there is facebook. If I travel to LA I can go to FB and check out who moved to LA in the last few years and actually meet them. Had I been in the email era, I wouldn't have had any idea of who was in LA. This is just a minor example for how facebook has changed the world on a personal level. When it comes to the big picture, look at the Arab uprising, it used the social networks heavily. We don't know what would have happened without Facebook or Twitter, but my guess is that not much. But you don't have to go to developing countries to see the effects of the social networks on politics and society in general. [1] This is a graph of the Spanish bipartisanship going down the drain after May 15th, 2011(15M/Spanish revolution)[2]. The movement started on Twitter, and slowly moved to Facebook. So these "toys" are changing the world, both on a micro and macro level, and denying that is like denying that TV changed how people view wars. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuWphzlCUAAdwqX.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuWphzlCUAAdwqX.png:large [2] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_15-M http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_15-M
- adamzerner 12y ago
  You've mentioned a few examples of how social media is having a positive impact on the world. And after thinking about it some, I think I underestimated how big an impact they have. I still think the proportion of the usage that is meaningful is low, but given the huge amount of usage, it has lead to a pretty decent amount of meaningful interaction. But what about the downsides? I don't have too strong an opinion and can't argue it well, but I do suspect that social media has its downsides, and that has to play into the equation. Something along the lines of "kids in the neighborhood used to all play outside together and now they're inside gossiping on social media".
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I bet there are downsides. But there were also downsides when every home got a telephone. And when everyone started carrying cellphones. My point is that new technology which changes the way humans communicate with each other is a phenomenon that has played out many times in the past few centuries.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
FD3SA 12y ago
The only thing these "social web apps" achieved was turning trust fund millionaire kids into billionaires. Give me a break. Real science and engineering, pushing the state of the art, is what changes the world. Not building a FarmVille platform or an advertising portal. I have a hard time associating with people who are so caught up in the "Valley culture" that they can't see how ridiculously trivial most of their endeavours really are. If you're into the startups and making money off "social/mobile/etc", all the power to you. Just don't claim you're the next Nikola Tesla. You're Gordon Gekko at best, making a quick buck off people's stupidity. No one will write about you in the science and engineering textbooks of the future. You got FU money. Congrats. Now donate some to Janelia Farm so something can come of your time on this earth other than stocks market transactions.

finishingmove 12y ago

Spot on. Capitalism generally is all about the illusion of progress, rather than real progress.

cglace 12y ago
And what is real progress? Do you define it?
- candu 12y ago
  More importantly: can you measure it?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    It's harder, though it is correlated with profit, so that's why we could be using it as a proxy and get away with it for so long.
    - pinkyand 12y ago
      There's a long debate whether profit correlate with value. The simple example the rise in GDP due to car accidents.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        It correlates in a way; that's the basic assumption of capitalism and the reason why companies work. But it does not correlate perfectly; many would say it doesn't do it very well, and I'd hazard a guess that profit and value are becoming more and more disconnected from each other.

facepalm 12y ago

If I am cured of some nasty illness it certainly makes me happier. I think Gregg Easterbrook is full of shit.

pinkyand 12y ago
It's about the bigger picture since "progress" brings also negative stuff like living in cramped boxes instead of in nature. Are in general western people happier than inedegenious people without access to said medicine ? Not sure , but it doesn't seem so.
- facepalm 12y ago
  If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. As for cramped boxes: is the population explosion due to progress? Maybe better health care and food? On the other hand, also better contraceptives, and the biggest population growth seems to happen in places with less progress. And with modern transport, at least you can get to nature at times. Also, people flock to the cities because they have no good opportunities in the countryside (look at China). If they wouldn't go to the cities, perhaps they would just starve, or start wars with their neighbors. Living in nature undisturbed Thoreau style is actually a great luxury.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. Two things. 1. You say "short and happy" life, but you can argue for "long and happy" - people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do. 2. It might not be survivor bias, there are lots of records and arguments suggesting that living hunter-gatherer lifestyle is much, much happier than what we have today. There's a nice article elaborating on that in case of Comanches [0]. An excerpt: So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant: All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives. Note the second paragraph. [0] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html

josu 12y ago

Twitter and Facebook have changed the world; I don't have a doubt about it. And not only in a micro scale, also in a macro level. I have gone from writing letters to my distant friends, to writing them emails, to writing them facebook messages. And believe it's much easier to keep in touch with friends now that there is facebook. If I travel to LA I can go to FB and check out who moved to LA in the last few years and actually meet them. Had I been in the email era, I wouldn't have had any idea of who was in LA. This is just a minor example for how facebook has changed the world on a personal level. When it comes to the big picture, look at the Arab uprising, it used the social networks heavily. We don't know what would have happened without Facebook or Twitter, but my guess is that not much. But you don't have to go to developing countries to see the effects of the social networks on politics and society in general. [1] This is a graph of the Spanish bipartisanship going down the drain after May 15th, 2011(15M/Spanish revolution)[2]. The movement started on Twitter, and slowly moved to Facebook. So these "toys" are changing the world, both on a micro and macro level, and denying that is like denying that TV changed how people view wars. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuWphzlCUAAdwqX.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuWphzlCUAAdwqX.png:large [2] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_15-M http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_15-M

adamzerner 12y ago
You've mentioned a few examples of how social media is having a positive impact on the world. And after thinking about it some, I think I underestimated how big an impact they have. I still think the proportion of the usage that is meaningful is low, but given the huge amount of usage, it has lead to a pretty decent amount of meaningful interaction. But what about the downsides? I don't have too strong an opinion and can't argue it well, but I do suspect that social media has its downsides, and that has to play into the equation. Something along the lines of "kids in the neighborhood used to all play outside together and now they're inside gossiping on social media".
- scott_s 12y ago
  I bet there are downsides. But there were also downsides when every home got a telephone. And when everyone started carrying cellphones. My point is that new technology which changes the way humans communicate with each other is a phenomenon that has played out many times in the past few centuries.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

FD3SA 12y ago

The only thing these "social web apps" achieved was turning trust fund millionaire kids into billionaires. Give me a break. Real science and engineering, pushing the state of the art, is what changes the world. Not building a FarmVille platform or an advertising portal. I have a hard time associating with people who are so caught up in the "Valley culture" that they can't see how ridiculously trivial most of their endeavours really are. If you're into the startups and making money off "social/mobile/etc", all the power to you. Just don't claim you're the next Nikola Tesla. You're Gordon Gekko at best, making a quick buck off people's stupidity. No one will write about you in the science and engineering textbooks of the future. You got FU money. Congrats. Now donate some to Janelia Farm so something can come of your time on this earth other than stocks market transactions.