5 ms·
Has all this magical technology actually made our life experience better?
I work mostly in lispy and functional languages and am enamored by all the theoretical beauty to which these environments aspire. I dabble in Prolog and think a lot about genetic algorithms, neural networks, and other mysteries I may never need for work but that captivate my imagination. I still marvel at the ability to Facetime in realtime with my nieces on the other side of the world who I rarely see, talk for free over VOIP with my 87-year old grandmother thousands of miles away, and instantly learn from fascinating people all over the world who I will never meet in "real life." These are genuinely magical phenomena for anyone who grew up before most people even had "answering machines" or "vcrs", and at a time when even a "car phone" seemed like a far-off reality. And I'm not even that old.
But I remember when you could visit a theatre or have dinner and the event of being with others was the point, people sharing the same space and time together, invested in that moment, and the only stimulation from another human was the one in front of you. Each encounter was a shared experience only between those involved. Uninterrupted from the outside, a special depth emerged from these moments.
Modern life has mostly removed this. You cannot watch a movie with an audience that is fully involved in it. At a party, many are equally invested in their conversations with those not present as they are with those who are. The energy and attention of our minds is not infinite, and when some of it enters the electronic portal, much less trickles toward those a few feet from you. Even a short check of email has a lingering effect on your mind that lasts longer than the actual disruption.
What is the net balance of these new tools? New generations will never understand the equally magical impact of being present in the moment with one or a hundred others, the true "social" experience, free of the distractions of an entire planet that is accessible from our purse or pocket.
- FroshKiller 11y agoUgh, "modern panic" is so tiresome. "New generations will never understand the...impact of being present in the moment with...others, the true 'social experience"? Why not? Are new generations going to be physically unable to gather, and is smartphone neck going to be an evolutionary advantage? It's just the same old KIDS TODAY and THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY WERE rubbish that Neolithic Man was sick of hearing from his grandparents. Get over yourself.
- veddox 11y agoI don't see it as "modern panic", but simply as a fact of life. Just like the OP, I love the ability modern technology gives us for communication, information, creativity, etc. But pretending that there are no drawbacks would be dumb and blinding oneself.
- Mimu 11y agoHis point was that the "it was better in my time" argument is as old as mankind it feels like. What you call drawbacks is what you experience in your childhood and what you think today's child are missing.
- veddox 11y ago> His point was that the "it was better in my time" argument is as old as mankind it feels like. Oh, I absolutely agree with that. (Don't quote me, but wasn't it Aristotle who is on record for complaining about "the youths of today"?). But I don't think that that is what the OP was really trying to say - his post wasn't so much about "everything used to be better" than rather "some things are really cool today, other things were perhaps cooler back in the days". That's a much more balanced approach, which IMO is worth thinking about. Like I said, one needs to think about up- and downsides of new developments. Ignoring either or both is not realistic. > What you call drawbacks is what you experience in your childhood and what you think today's child are missing. Hm, first of all, I'm not even 20 yet (not quite). Secondly, I spent my formative years in Africa (with few electronic devices) and Europe (with electronics everywhere). So I dare say I am actually in a position to compare the two.
- paperrr1 11y agofurthering efficient use of time exponentially aggregates along with technological innovation. Does the cotton processor offer spite towards the cotton gin because human hands no longer labor hours over a single thread? Does the wheat sower languish over automated processes future backs will not bend perpetually towards the earth? Perhaps, but the rest of society marveled at the increased efficiencies. As someone born around the turn of the century I will never have to carry a map with me, will never have to memorize phone numbers, will never have to look up job openings (or any other piece of dynamic social information) in a newspaper, will never own a house phone, will never pay for TV subscription -- heck, i'll never own a TV! Such things are inefficient and antiquated. I can now contact anyone of my friends and share my experience -- in real time, anywhere on Earth! Instantaneous communication is fucking amazing.
- npzimmerman 11y agoThis is a topic already covered at some length: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... I'm not joking, the predictions and discussion of technical progress are very much relevant. It should be required reading. The nearest I can tell, anti-intellectualism and the red scare have robbed multiple generations of a valuable source of vocabulary and context for understanding our current stage of human development. As for how, exactly, we get past alienation - I don't know.
- paperrr1 11y agowww.marx stopped reading there. Atleast I should've 'anti-intellectualism'. Being a non-marxist doesn't mark one an anti-intellectualist. Such pomp for ones own ideas..
- alistproducer2 11y agoThanks for bringing this up. I remember reading the communist manifesto back in the day. Despite how insightful it is, our society makes it seem like a subversive action.
- hellofunk 11y agoThat's often true with paradigms and ideologies. The way a particular group of people or a society at large interpret and use/abuse a philosophy is rarely reflected in the ideology itself. For example, look at all the atrocities, both physical and social, that have occurred throughout history due to the way Christianity was interpreted. The Bible has been used to justify all types of prejudice, even though the New Testament's message is actually quite the contrary.
- paperrr1 11y agodaily reminder that marxism and socialist variants killed over 100 million people last century.
- nikhilkalegregg 11y agoI think the answer to that question depends on your perspective, when you ask, who you ask, and the specific context upon which you are asking. If you asked a horny bisexual caveman 7000 years ago, he might prefer spending time with you in person and in the moment to being on Facetime with you. If you ask someone now, they’d probably prefer Facetiming a horny bisexual caveman rather than spending time with him in person. I think its mostly relative, but personally I think the taste of the magic we consume makes us require more magic to attain general satisfaction, and in that sense it is addictive and reduces joy in things like being present in the moment, since we have the means to solve our problems with more magic in any given moment.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cylinder 11y agoHumanity and culture are fluid and dynamic. It will always be changing. I'm sure there were many who panicked about how social interactions were ruined by the introduction of the light bulb to the living room, and then the radio, then tv, etc.