7 ms·

I don't think my kids would be better off without TV, and I suspect most people don't actually think that, either. TV (just as books) is a tool for delivering

I don't think my kids would be better off without TV, and I suspect most people don't actually think that, either. TV (just as books) is a tool for delivering entertainment, education, and culture, and it's reasonably effective at that. I'm glad I had TV when I was a child. The thing I value most is that it inspired an interest in science, math, and technology. Thanks, Square One, Bill Nye, Beakman's World, Discover, etc! Later on in life (teenage years), it taught me about time management; you can allow yourself to be entertained for many hours and not actually feel better for it, but actually worse, as you've lost that time; you can allow yourself to be entertained for an hour and it will change your whole outlook on the day. Always be aware of what you are gaining and giving up for entertainment. Anyway, I could go on about why I love TV (and these days, the Internet), that's the gist.

vinceguidry 12y ago
You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from an entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology. Such a perspective is limited only to the affluent and Western-oriented. That's a ridiculously tiny fraction of humanity. And even there it's only been for the last 20 years or so, I suspect closer to 10-15. It wasn't that long ago most people considered the Internet a tool for commerce, not a vehicle for connection and entertainment, people that used it as such were looked at as basement-dwelling perma-nerds.
- scrollaway 12y ago
  > You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from an entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology. Okay, so? Not sure what you're trying to get at here.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    The person I was replying to didn't seem to understand how people could think of technology, namely televisions, as an alien force that shouldn't be trusted. And indeed it shouldn't be trusted, until it becomes ubiquitous. High technology emerged in the fifties. It took over fifty years for it to suffuse our lives to the point where we could trust it. I grew up with technology. Most of the kids I grew up with didn't. I had computers and video games and I spent all my time with them, all the time my mom would let me spend. She would kick me out and make me go play outside. She was right to do so, if I hadn't I might now be even more socially stunted than I am. These days parents won't do that. Kids today can spend an amount of time I could only dream of interacting with technology. We trust it now. People in other parts of the world where high technology isn't ubiquitous would do well to distrust it. It rips through traditional ways of life like so much toilet paper. The people whose lives are disrupted often don't have anything else. Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring the Internet to everybody. I hope he doesn't accomplish his goal too soon. The Arab Spring made a lot of people's lives measurably worse. Don't like your dictator, sure, topple him and feel real good about the democracy you think you're bringing to your country. What now? Until we, the West, inventors of high technology and snubbers of complex social problems, can answer that question, that delicate system of graft and corruption is keeping your country stable.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      I don't think it's fair to blame the political situation of the middle east on technology. It contributed, sure, but how much would have happened anyway? And how many other factors are at play?
joshjkim 12y ago
I agree - I think his TV example is a little over-simplified, especially given the enormous range of quality and content available. Some of the best story-telling is taking place in between commercials these days, just like Dickens and Eliot were printed between printed ads in serials. I also bet that if you asked most parents whether they let their kids watch anything they wanted (to the extent they are able to control that...), they would say they do not and at least have a concept of what they want their kids to watch and what they don't allow their kids to watch. I'm sure many would skew positively towards the educational shows you mentioned, and I'm sure many are not encouraging or even allowing their 8 year olds to watch MTV spring break (old person reference? haha). Still, I think the overall point that there are costs that need to be recognized is valid, but I would say it is manifested more regularly than the article suggests in the sort of regulation I describe above. That being said, I think his overall point that western society as a whole has not properly confronted the true costs of technology is fairly legitimate (see all the data scandals, the NSA, hackers etc.), but I also see certain corrections being made already (see the article itself and all backlash to the data scandals, NSA, hackers, etc.), and that given the rapid pace of tech development in the past 20 years the reactions are not particularly slow - we'll see where it all pans out.

vinceguidry 12y ago

You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from an entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology. Such a perspective is limited only to the affluent and Western-oriented. That's a ridiculously tiny fraction of humanity. And even there it's only been for the last 20 years or so, I suspect closer to 10-15. It wasn't that long ago most people considered the Internet a tool for commerce, not a vehicle for connection and entertainment, people that used it as such were looked at as basement-dwelling perma-nerds.

scrollaway 12y ago
> You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from an entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology. Okay, so? Not sure what you're trying to get at here.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  The person I was replying to didn't seem to understand how people could think of technology, namely televisions, as an alien force that shouldn't be trusted. And indeed it shouldn't be trusted, until it becomes ubiquitous. High technology emerged in the fifties. It took over fifty years for it to suffuse our lives to the point where we could trust it. I grew up with technology. Most of the kids I grew up with didn't. I had computers and video games and I spent all my time with them, all the time my mom would let me spend. She would kick me out and make me go play outside. She was right to do so, if I hadn't I might now be even more socially stunted than I am. These days parents won't do that. Kids today can spend an amount of time I could only dream of interacting with technology. We trust it now. People in other parts of the world where high technology isn't ubiquitous would do well to distrust it. It rips through traditional ways of life like so much toilet paper. The people whose lives are disrupted often don't have anything else. Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring the Internet to everybody. I hope he doesn't accomplish his goal too soon. The Arab Spring made a lot of people's lives measurably worse. Don't like your dictator, sure, topple him and feel real good about the democracy you think you're bringing to your country. What now? Until we, the West, inventors of high technology and snubbers of complex social problems, can answer that question, that delicate system of graft and corruption is keeping your country stable.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I don't think it's fair to blame the political situation of the middle east on technology. It contributed, sure, but how much would have happened anyway? And how many other factors are at play?

joshjkim 12y ago

I agree - I think his TV example is a little over-simplified, especially given the enormous range of quality and content available. Some of the best story-telling is taking place in between commercials these days, just like Dickens and Eliot were printed between printed ads in serials. I also bet that if you asked most parents whether they let their kids watch anything they wanted (to the extent they are able to control that...), they would say they do not and at least have a concept of what they want their kids to watch and what they don't allow their kids to watch. I'm sure many would skew positively towards the educational shows you mentioned, and I'm sure many are not encouraging or even allowing their 8 year olds to watch MTV spring break (old person reference? haha). Still, I think the overall point that there are costs that need to be recognized is valid, but I would say it is manifested more regularly than the article suggests in the sort of regulation I describe above. That being said, I think his overall point that western society as a whole has not properly confronted the true costs of technology is fairly legitimate (see all the data scandals, the NSA, hackers etc.), but I also see certain corrections being made already (see the article itself and all backlash to the data scandals, NSA, hackers, etc.), and that given the rapid pace of tech development in the past 20 years the reactions are not particularly slow - we'll see where it all pans out.