Slashdot Log In
The Mechanized Future
Posted by
samzenpus
on Mon Jun 25, 2007 01:31 PM
from the start-writing-your-manifesto's dept.
from the start-writing-your-manifesto's dept.
Michael J. Ross and Dan Sisson write "In our increasingly mechanized world, we repeatedly hear promises that every new digital product, computerized service, or other form of technology, will make our lives easier — bestowing greater leisure, health, and happiness. Yet are any of those promises being fulfilled? Are we not instead becoming slaves to the very "conveniences" that we struggle to master? These weighty questions are addressed by Steve Talbott in his book Devices of the Soul: Battling for Our Selves in an Age of Machines." Read below for the rest of Michael and Dan's review.
| Devices of the Soul | |
| author | Steve Talbott |
| pages | 281 |
| publisher | O'Reilly Media |
| rating | 7 |
| reviewer | Michael J. Ross and Dan Sisson |
| ISBN | 0596526806 |
| summary | A passionate warning against technology overtaking our lives |
Published by O'Reilly Media in April 2007, under ISBNs 0596526806 and 978-0596526801, Devices of the Soul argues that we are now blindly accepting technology with little or no countervailing efforts or even awareness, and we are paying a terrible toll, both individually and as a society.
From the day a child of the 21st century begins his education, he is confronted with mind-numbing statistics, numbers, and facts via the computer — which he must accept. Perhaps even more important, he must master its "techniques" as the sine qua non tool to be successful in life. This is not a voyage of self-discovery; it is a demand by "the system" that the individual accept a way of viewing the world that invades, conquers, and ultimately controls his life. The child will learn most of what he knows with it, play with it, talk with it, and allow his thinking to be ruled by it — all because it is the magical machine that gives him access to the world's knowledge, e.g., the Internet.
By the time this child makes the transition from high school to college, he will be required to accept a curriculum that too often lacks meaning and content, that fails to allow him to satisfy his own curiosity about the challenges facing humanity, and is, moreover, expensive and will likely lead to indebtedness. There are few alternatives to this gauntlet, especially if one wishes to belong to the 'credentialed society', which determines modern man's measure of success.
Education is only the first stage in the numbing of our consciousness. What follows is built upon this edifice. Our acceptance of machines — ubiquitous in our everyday lives — provides our food, transportation, entertainment, information, and prestige — in sum, everything we need to function in modern society.
Talbott shows how the machines we use create a grand illusion, namely, that by having every technological gadget, we will save time and money, and be able to spend more time with our family and loved ones. However, that leisure time never materializes. The technology costs more, not less. Consequently, we find ourselves in a perpetual struggle to preserve a bare minimum of human emotions and instincts.
The next stage in the individual's life is integration into the mature world of the computerized economy, i.e., when he becomes a "stakeholder." He accepts a world that does away with human values and subordinates him to "market values." Furthermore, he is bound to lose his sense of privacy.
It follows that almost everyone willingly accepts that advancement in life and career increasingly requires having electronic conversations with machines — and eventually robots — that will never ask us what our personal assumptions and/or values are, and have no intentions of doing so. In short, our resistance to the machine fades. It is "far easier to assign the intelligence solely to the machine than to seek out those tortured pathways" to the human urges within us. Society itself, not just the individual, says Talbott, "is unsurprisingly assuming the character of our technology."
The outcome is grim: "Historically, there appears to be an element of tragedy in all this. We stumble along in ignorance and, by the time we realize the subtle ways our actions have caught up with us, the damage and loss are already irrevocable."
Technology expresses itself in numbers and computations divorced from human values. Efficiency is nearly the sole criterion by which modern corporations make decisions, and it is no accident that these two ideas, human values versus efficiency, are mutually exclusive. In objecting to the mess we humans have created, Talbott notes: "If you want human values, if you want qualitative distinctions, then your theoretical constructs must retain those values and distinctions every step of the way. The minute you allow them to collapse into number alone, you have no way to get back from there to the qualitative world."
Despite these tragic overtones, he argues that we can and must return to that qualitative world where we can realize our deepest human qualities. We can retain our humanity in connection to the natural world, despite using tools skillfully, as exemplified by the wily trickster Odysseus, as well as Tomo, a member of the Waorani Indians in the Amazon jungles of Ecuador who demonstrated phenomenal knowledge of his world.
His prescription for humanity's emergence from this present Dark Age also includes developing a strong sense of history. We must realize how other humans expressed their individuality, and realized their hopes and dreams. Despite the fact that Americans generally have little appreciation for or cognizance of history, there may come a time when reading history may be the only place to find models of human behavior that went against the technophilic grain.
Interspersed throughout his analysis, Talbott offers suggestions to arrest this headlong rush into a mechanized future. They tend to be general in nature, such as urging us to seek a sense of "place," and to engage in conversations with our fellow men (and even our machines) to remind them of our human needs. Echoing Edward Abbey, who attempted to alert us to the environmental disasters of the 1960's with books like The Monkey Wrench Gang, Talbott writes, "This may at times require us to throw a wrench into the machinery in order to serve the worthy human intentions behind it."
Despite Talbott's skills as a writer, the book, sadly, has some substantial flaws. Two of the most obvious are the overly long digressions into the stories of Jacques Lusseyran and Martha Beck, which admittedly are fascinating, but delay the presentation of more topical material. Furthermore, they suggest that Talbott is misidentifying the emotional power of those stories as proof of his arguments, and thus committing the common error of anecdotal evidence. Even worse, they border on romanticizing blindness and Down syndrome, respectively.
He also fails to address a major factor in our growing discontent with the Information Age: the nonstop ratcheting up of our expectations, driven largely by marketing on the seller side, and a lack of philosophic questioning on the consumer side.
A common pattern in the book is a deep criticism of any given aspect or consequence of technology, to the extent that Talbott appears to be arguing that we should do away with it completely. But he often then wraps up his analysis by briefly contradicting the earlier implication, and stating that he does not believe the phenomenon at issue should be eradicated. This schizophrenic reasoning mixes bold, blanket criticisms with assurances to the contrary. Yet one may argue that, with so much of current social discourse failing to question technology, its critics must never err with overly cautious warnings.
There are other problems in his analysis: He invests much hope in what he terms "conversation," "meaning," and "value" — not clearly specified, and yet spoken of highly. He fears machine intelligence (and perhaps rightly so), and doubts its viability, but fails to understand its potential for emergence. Even though a former computer programmer, he does not seem to understand the value of abstraction, and the possibility that it can be used beneficially, without being considered the only source of important knowledge. Lastly, it is odd that he does not cite the pioneering work of a well-known predecessor, Jacques Ellul, in The Technological Society.
Nonetheless, the issues that Talbott raises are of critical importance — so much so that they make his lapses of logic that much more maddening. Because so much is at stake, our efforts at analyzing, understanding, and solving these problems, must be proportionally energetic and effective. Technophiles may dismiss his entire effort based upon the book's weaknesses, and consequently miss out on the valuable gist of his viewpoint. Similarly, impatient readers in our age of limited attention spans, might not make it through the aforesaid tangents, and likewise miss out.
The issues that he discusses should be raised more often and more loudly, with broader acceptance and expansion of the debate and its importance. Otherwise, we will continue our robotic march deeper into a future that is controlled more by soulless devices, and less by skeptical humans. If we fail completely to change course, we may be saddled with a life that is intolerable to the human spirit.
Devices of the Soul is an insightful, disturbing, imperfect, eloquent, and important contribution to what may ultimately become the most critical debate in the intensifying conflict between humans and our technological creations: Humans may survive, but will our humanity?
Michael J. Ross is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter. Dan Sisson is an adjunct professor at Eastern Washington University, where he has taught technology courses for the past eight years; he is an authority on Thomas Jefferson, is author of The American Revolution of 1800, and is currently building and living in a replica of Monticello.
You can purchase Devices of the Soul from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
From the day a child of the 21st century begins his education, he is confronted with mind-numbing statistics, numbers, and facts via the computer — which he must accept. Perhaps even more important, he must master its "techniques" as the sine qua non tool to be successful in life. This is not a voyage of self-discovery; it is a demand by "the system" that the individual accept a way of viewing the world that invades, conquers, and ultimately controls his life. The child will learn most of what he knows with it, play with it, talk with it, and allow his thinking to be ruled by it — all because it is the magical machine that gives him access to the world's knowledge, e.g., the Internet.
By the time this child makes the transition from high school to college, he will be required to accept a curriculum that too often lacks meaning and content, that fails to allow him to satisfy his own curiosity about the challenges facing humanity, and is, moreover, expensive and will likely lead to indebtedness. There are few alternatives to this gauntlet, especially if one wishes to belong to the 'credentialed society', which determines modern man's measure of success.
Education is only the first stage in the numbing of our consciousness. What follows is built upon this edifice. Our acceptance of machines — ubiquitous in our everyday lives — provides our food, transportation, entertainment, information, and prestige — in sum, everything we need to function in modern society.
Talbott shows how the machines we use create a grand illusion, namely, that by having every technological gadget, we will save time and money, and be able to spend more time with our family and loved ones. However, that leisure time never materializes. The technology costs more, not less. Consequently, we find ourselves in a perpetual struggle to preserve a bare minimum of human emotions and instincts.
The next stage in the individual's life is integration into the mature world of the computerized economy, i.e., when he becomes a "stakeholder." He accepts a world that does away with human values and subordinates him to "market values." Furthermore, he is bound to lose his sense of privacy.
It follows that almost everyone willingly accepts that advancement in life and career increasingly requires having electronic conversations with machines — and eventually robots — that will never ask us what our personal assumptions and/or values are, and have no intentions of doing so. In short, our resistance to the machine fades. It is "far easier to assign the intelligence solely to the machine than to seek out those tortured pathways" to the human urges within us. Society itself, not just the individual, says Talbott, "is unsurprisingly assuming the character of our technology."
The outcome is grim: "Historically, there appears to be an element of tragedy in all this. We stumble along in ignorance and, by the time we realize the subtle ways our actions have caught up with us, the damage and loss are already irrevocable."
Technology expresses itself in numbers and computations divorced from human values. Efficiency is nearly the sole criterion by which modern corporations make decisions, and it is no accident that these two ideas, human values versus efficiency, are mutually exclusive. In objecting to the mess we humans have created, Talbott notes: "If you want human values, if you want qualitative distinctions, then your theoretical constructs must retain those values and distinctions every step of the way. The minute you allow them to collapse into number alone, you have no way to get back from there to the qualitative world."
Despite these tragic overtones, he argues that we can and must return to that qualitative world where we can realize our deepest human qualities. We can retain our humanity in connection to the natural world, despite using tools skillfully, as exemplified by the wily trickster Odysseus, as well as Tomo, a member of the Waorani Indians in the Amazon jungles of Ecuador who demonstrated phenomenal knowledge of his world.
His prescription for humanity's emergence from this present Dark Age also includes developing a strong sense of history. We must realize how other humans expressed their individuality, and realized their hopes and dreams. Despite the fact that Americans generally have little appreciation for or cognizance of history, there may come a time when reading history may be the only place to find models of human behavior that went against the technophilic grain.
Interspersed throughout his analysis, Talbott offers suggestions to arrest this headlong rush into a mechanized future. They tend to be general in nature, such as urging us to seek a sense of "place," and to engage in conversations with our fellow men (and even our machines) to remind them of our human needs. Echoing Edward Abbey, who attempted to alert us to the environmental disasters of the 1960's with books like The Monkey Wrench Gang, Talbott writes, "This may at times require us to throw a wrench into the machinery in order to serve the worthy human intentions behind it."
Despite Talbott's skills as a writer, the book, sadly, has some substantial flaws. Two of the most obvious are the overly long digressions into the stories of Jacques Lusseyran and Martha Beck, which admittedly are fascinating, but delay the presentation of more topical material. Furthermore, they suggest that Talbott is misidentifying the emotional power of those stories as proof of his arguments, and thus committing the common error of anecdotal evidence. Even worse, they border on romanticizing blindness and Down syndrome, respectively.
He also fails to address a major factor in our growing discontent with the Information Age: the nonstop ratcheting up of our expectations, driven largely by marketing on the seller side, and a lack of philosophic questioning on the consumer side.
A common pattern in the book is a deep criticism of any given aspect or consequence of technology, to the extent that Talbott appears to be arguing that we should do away with it completely. But he often then wraps up his analysis by briefly contradicting the earlier implication, and stating that he does not believe the phenomenon at issue should be eradicated. This schizophrenic reasoning mixes bold, blanket criticisms with assurances to the contrary. Yet one may argue that, with so much of current social discourse failing to question technology, its critics must never err with overly cautious warnings.
There are other problems in his analysis: He invests much hope in what he terms "conversation," "meaning," and "value" — not clearly specified, and yet spoken of highly. He fears machine intelligence (and perhaps rightly so), and doubts its viability, but fails to understand its potential for emergence. Even though a former computer programmer, he does not seem to understand the value of abstraction, and the possibility that it can be used beneficially, without being considered the only source of important knowledge. Lastly, it is odd that he does not cite the pioneering work of a well-known predecessor, Jacques Ellul, in The Technological Society.
Nonetheless, the issues that Talbott raises are of critical importance — so much so that they make his lapses of logic that much more maddening. Because so much is at stake, our efforts at analyzing, understanding, and solving these problems, must be proportionally energetic and effective. Technophiles may dismiss his entire effort based upon the book's weaknesses, and consequently miss out on the valuable gist of his viewpoint. Similarly, impatient readers in our age of limited attention spans, might not make it through the aforesaid tangents, and likewise miss out.
The issues that he discusses should be raised more often and more loudly, with broader acceptance and expansion of the debate and its importance. Otherwise, we will continue our robotic march deeper into a future that is controlled more by soulless devices, and less by skeptical humans. If we fail completely to change course, we may be saddled with a life that is intolerable to the human spirit.
Devices of the Soul is an insightful, disturbing, imperfect, eloquent, and important contribution to what may ultimately become the most critical debate in the intensifying conflict between humans and our technological creations: Humans may survive, but will our humanity?
Michael J. Ross is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter. Dan Sisson is an adjunct professor at Eastern Washington University, where he has taught technology courses for the past eight years; he is an authority on Thomas Jefferson, is author of The American Revolution of 1800, and is currently building and living in a replica of Monticello.
You can purchase Devices of the Soul from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Intensifying Conflict? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not intensifying. Broadening. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30 2005, @03:18PM)
The ancient Greeks observed that if happiness is the result of having all of your wants satisfied, the surest path to happiness is to discipline your wants.
Philosophy is a pasttime of the wealthy. Technological and social progress have created a society where almost everybody is, compared to the helots of ancient times, wealthy. Quite ordinary people now find themselves dealing with detritus produced by a life of unexamined wealth and consumption.
So, this is not a problem of technology per se; it is only that mass produced technology is one of the most abundant and affordable luxuries of our soceity. The medieval sin of gula or "gluttony" is not simply about gross overeating, it is about compulsive and unreasoning consumption of every kind, which happens to be the cornerstone of our consumer economy. The only reason we think of this in terms of food only is that food is the one overindulgence available to the rich of every society and technological level. Note that food gluttony does not imply massive consumption, it can also be characteristic of excessive delicacy or daintiness. This fits technological gluttony particularly well.
So, it is probably incorrect to call this an "intensifying" conflict. It is more of a "broadening" conflict: broadened to include more classes of peoples and desires than before.
Re:Not intensifying. Broadening. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.wavenger.com/)
The very people who have the biggest problem with consumption are debtors, who are, by definition, not wealthy. Aside from their own abilities, their net worth is often zero or negative.
The issue with this is that many people are apparently not taught financial prudence, moderation or frugality by anyone, and then, the economy fails to acutely punish their manic spending as harshly as it would have in the past (death, prison, slavery, etc). Instead, we must all bear the burden of the massive consumer debt. Tragedy of the commons, you know. It is this, not directly technology, which allows people to be as gluttonous as they are.
Re:Wrong. Think Buddhism and Fransican monks (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mp3bat.com/)
Actually most philosophy before the 21st century was done by people who took vows of poverty and sat in caves or monasteries and thought about these problems. Wikipedia is down right now or I'd link you to eastern and western philosophers.
The whole concept of Buddhism is that suffering comes from wanting things... Not the lack of them. So basically they had plenty of time to think about things because they either took donations of food or grew their own gardens. Not because they had wealthy patrons or slaves to sustain them. They simply stopped playing the universal rat race and accepted poverty. Same thing happened in European Monasteries but with Christian overtone (St Thomas Aquinas?)
Now when we get into modern times did we get non-religious philosophy like Voltaire (well he wasn't modern but might as well have been), Kafka, Nietzsche, and everyone else who took different views on materialism etc.
Simply saying having more luxuries now is the key reason for these philosophies is not true, but rather stems from the human fear of change.
Personally, I think that there nothing philosophical about what the author is saying other that it matches a luddite world view that fears having too much time on their hands and change to their personal life.
In that respect people have been saying these since the automated looms replaced workers in the 1800's.
Personally, I think technology can be used both ways... To repress humanity and to expand it. However, we haven't had many Buddhist monks contemplate this since it is a rather recent thing, but from what I have gathered... Transhumanist and Buddhist ideals aren't that far away from each other.
They both seek to desire to rise about their limitations of being human.
Re:Intensifying Conflict? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I don't think "mechanization" is that important in the grand scheme of things. It's "connectedness" that is changing what it means to be human.
Try this thought experiment: Think of any good movie set any time 15 years ago or more. Say The Godfather, The Graduate, heck even Ghostbusters (since I seem to be stuck on movies starting with 'G' ), it doesn't matter. You could add amazing materials science, advanced robotics, intelligent toasters, whatever, most mechanization won't change the movie that much. Want to completely ruin the movie? Give everybody in it a cell phone.
IMO nothing has changed what it means to be human more than our new degree of connectedness. If you read some good near-future fiction (Rainbow's End and Diamond Age obviously come to mind), the authors seem to agree.
Changes in how we communicate and how we connect with each other are far more fundamental to our humanity than any new gadgetry or method of getting work done.
Mechanization is an outdated bogeyman.
Nice but not really. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would break it down to two possibilities: upper class those who can fix the robots or create new models, lower class those who cannot.
Re:Nice but not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 19, @07:48AM)
Or upper class who own the robots, lower class who do not.
Re:Nice but not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30 2005, @03:18PM)
The question is, who will direct the robots? Directly, of course, robots (or rather systems) will direct other robots. But whose desires and needs will the robots serve?
Where it gets really interesting is this: suppose that every basic need of every human being could be met. Would it happen? If it did happen, what would it mean for somebody to be wealthy? Or free for that matter?
Re:Nice but not really. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.fodors.org/)
Good point. How do we solve this?
All I Have To Say... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh ho! (Score:3, Funny)
Vestiges of the Industrial Era (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://bi-boy.net/)
Re:Vestiges of the Industrial Era (Score:5, Interesting)
Humpty Dumpty (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/51ebe/ | Last Journal: Monday August 20, @09:15PM)
Efficiency is nearly the sole criterion by which modern corporations make decisions, and it is no accident that these two ideas, human values versus efficiency, are mutually exclusive.
There is nothing new here, really. There has always been a tension between those who learned a new technology and those who were late learning it. Whether it is the wheel, or the inclined plane, or whatever the latest tech is, the question is who is master.
In Truth... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.flying-rhenquest.net/)
As to the consumerism run rampant in our society, there IS a lot of inane and mindless chatter in the media we can partake of daily. A simple solution to that problem, and I believe that most thinking people will figure this out, is simply to turn it off. You don't have to listen to the endless barrage of encouragement to consume, and you don't have to teach your children to become mindless young consumers, either. If someone else wants to raise their families differently that's really none of your concern either. Maybe they're happier that way.
As to Robots in the future, if we create another form of intelligence in the future we should not treat it as there to serve us. I think that part of what makes us uneasy about the idea is the implicit view that robots will be our slaves. If it is self aware then we should allow it to have its own goals, hopes and dreams. We should not enslave them any more than we enslave our own children. Hopefully they'll have a similar view...
Re:The Fear of Silence (Score:4, Interesting)
Nutshell: I have lost (in large part if not completely) my fear of silence.
The Fear of Silence is what plagues most of the people I know who are 'hyper-connected' and going nowhere fast. Lots of flash, sizzle and 'choices', almost none of them meaningful or nourishing, but rather chaotic and vampyiric, sucking up our time and attention in almost every area, physical and otherwise, of our lives.
Technology is quickly reaching a point where the 'cost of access' is more than the monthly bill. With the first wave of true nanotechnology about to crest, terms like 'computer virus' will take on much more dangerous and invasive connotations, and 'privacy' will utterly and completely be a relic of the past. We will be able to Google each other's private lives (and privates ; ) with near-realtime accuracy.
On the plus side, it will be egalitarian. The hammer with which you can 'smite' (humiliate/swindle/blackmail) me can as easily be used against you.
Interesting times ahead. Relax, keep your chin up and focus on what's important to you. And take the 'vampire' analogy to heart. We are responsible for the consequences of whom and what we invite into our homes/lives.
Just you wait until... (Score:2)
(http://altgrendel.exit0.us/)
Easy life? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is my theory that new technology will not make life easier, but instead will increase our demands. It's the same way computer games will always be limited by hardware. Whenever we increase the hardware of a computer, we add more to the game to increase the demand for better hardware. It becomes (has always been) a vicious cycle.
Re:Easy life? (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, I'd say modern technology has made life better.
The Century of the Self (Score:3, Insightful)
there is a very good explination of the social engineering tactics used by world leaders utilizing Freudian theories of the psyche that was broadcasted by the bbc, which is entitled, the century of the self.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-26376353
I wish... (Score:2)
(http://www.rru.com/~meo/)
Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @05:12PM)
Just once I want someone to really take into account what it would mean for society to actually do the stuff they think it should do. Let's drop out of the rat race, lets stop burdening our children with science and math, and just teach them art and the kind of philosophy that has no practical applications.
So what happens? Lets say our technology doesn't decline, but just stays absolutely steady: All the crap we've been trying to outrun for years will catch right up. Global warming? Yup. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria? Yup. Shortage of clean water? Yup. Shortage of resources? Yup. To stay where we are, we have to push through some of this crap...It's a real race to see whether we can beat it before it beats us.
Alternative? Drop our tech back a couple hundred years, go agrarian. We've only picked up, eh, around 5 billion people since then...Better for the world if they starve, right? At least they won't have to be soulless users of math.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel soulless. Life's a grind, sure, but tell me that hasn't always been the case. Regardless of whether or not I kill a deer today, I'm still going to have dinner; that's a hell of a lot more than most of my ancestors could say. My kid may die of something but it's a hell of a lot less likely than it was even 50 years ago. I travel as far back and forth to work as a strong hiker could do in a day, and it doesn't even take me an hour.
Sure, this isn't the best of times (we hope), but it's not the worst either. We're still solving problems. Air quality sucks, but it doesn't suck half as bad as it did 50 years ago. Computers are still ramping up at a rate that is practically obscene when viewed from an objective distance. Think about the tech 50 years ago; most of us have calculators that crush that...And the tech is still in it's infancy. We're still seeking something better for ourselves, the growth of our minds and our societies and the glory of our species.
Or we could just give up. Go back to being hunter gatherers...If that's even possible.
I know which road I'd choose.
We want more (Score:2, Insightful)
Noticing a trend here? (Score:3)
"Are things the way they seem, or how about my incredible spin on everything with catastrophic consequences?"
And they always turn out wrong.
I think... (Score:2)
Also, mind-slaves, in that once we own all this stuff it causes us to behave in more sheep-like conformant ways.
Another angle (Score:2)
Gadgets at your local park (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gadgets at your local park (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.tubespot.com/)
Without the cell phone, I would've just been sitting in my office chair. Does that make me a technological slave?
Fight Club (Score:1, Insightful)
(http://xkcd.com/301/)
"Look, nobody takes this more seriously than me. That condo was my life okay? I loved every stick of furniture in that place. That was not just a bunch of stuff that got destroyed, it was me!" -Narrator
One Or The Other? (Score:1)
It's like deja vu all over again (Score:2)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/control_group)
It's kinda too bad it's not; the resulting flamewar would have been hilarious.
Other inhuman technologies (Score:4, Funny)
This soulless and inert device transforms the living, thinking word of Man to meaningless scratches on parchment or vellum. It leads inevitably to disrespect of knowledge and the withering of memory.
While priests and philosophers may find an occasional use for these "books", their use by the common citizen will enslave them to a technology and destroy the human spirit.
Déjà vu. (Score:1)
Oops. (Score:2)
(http://www.fodors.org/)
Your bias is showing.
Both authors misses the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypothesis one (original theory): This gives us mroe time to spend with family
Hypothesis two (their reply): Despite this time saved, we seem to have it sucked away. It must be that the devices are EVIL. SATAN SPAWN EVIL. Cue Manical laughter now.
Hypothesis three (reasonable, intelligent, but not panicy enough to get a book):
About 50-100 years ago, we settled down to a reasonable ratio of time spent with family vs. work. Any thing that saves us time will NOT increase the time we spend with one or the other. Instead we will keep the same ratio of time spent working vs time spent with our family. Work is not evil, it is a GOOD thing. We either enjoy it, or we enjoy what it lets us earn. We like more money more than the time with our family, becaue we can use the money to have higher quality time (or we just don't like our family.)
Dead Horse (Score:1)
I'd much rather be living in the NOW than when that horse's hide was just beginning to blister as it was passed by that new-fangled auto-mobile.
But here's a fun activity... Read through that book report again, but substitute "religion" for "technology". It won't fit in every usage, but where it does and doesn't work is quite enlightening.
Self-evident (Score:2)
Degenerate forms of bending? (Score:2)
Like all things in life, these are just primitive, degenerate forms of bending.
Wow, copy Future Shock, get on Slash (Score:2)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Maury_Markowitz)
Another sad attempt to scare us all with the techno-boogyman. It was much more fun when he sounded like HAL, not not an iPod. Now it's just so *old*
Maury
Sounds like Bullsh*t (Score:2, Informative)
The errors described in the review are so numerous it is hard to know where to begin. Here are a few:
From the review: However, that leisure time never materializes.
Not so! Leisure time has increased! [marginalrevolution.com] By 6-8 hours per week for men and 4-8 hours for women!
Hell, I am old-duffer compare to most here. Remember what bill paying was like 10 years ago? Having to write checks, fill out addresses on envelopes and stamp them, make sure they get mailed on time, etc. etc. It could take hours, and I hated it. Now, I do everything on line in much less time.
Or, how about writing papers in school in the old days using a type writer! Aagh! Don't get me started on that one -- which brings us to more bullsh*t...
From the review: . . .he is confronted with mind-numbing statistics, numbers, and facts via the computer -- which he must accept. Perhaps even more important, he must master its "techniques" as the sine qua non tool to be successful in life.
What a load of crap! The internet has everything! False statistics and incorrect facts from every possible point of view. "He" does not have to accept everything, and will in fact learn much better discernment tools much earlier in life. And as for "techniques"! Gosh, maybe we should go back to the days before we could read and write so we would not have to be bothered with using pens and the alphabet and other such bother some techniques. Or perhaps we can jettison our computers for the good old days of slide rules and typewriters and mimeograph machines and telegraphs. Its not like there were techniques in the old days now were there? I am reminded of this: Monk's help desk. [youtube.com]
I have no time to continue, but this man is a Luddite. History? Here, I am a blast from the past for a lot of you youngin's (whipper snappers the lot of you!) and here I get to speak to you. I couldn't do that in the past. I find nothing credible from the book in this review. I thank the reviewer, but I also think he is too charitable.
Oh, and this is good, history! (Score:2)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Maury_Markowitz)
> we can and must return to that qualitative world where
> we can realize our deepest human qualities.
Ohhhh kayyyy....
> as exemplified by the wily trickster Odysseus
> His prescription for humanity's emergence from this
> present Dark Age also includes developing a strong
> sense of history.
JFC! Is he kidding?
I have a strong sense of history, I spend most of my free time reading and writing about it. Here's a quick lesson in history for you:
Five hundred years ago YOU would live in a one-room dirt floor shack. You would have almost no money, only a handful of tools, and little or nothing in the way of personal belongings. You would eat perhaps 25 varieties of food in your entire lifetime, and those would take you a significant portion of the day to prepare. You would work from before sunup to just before sundown, although there were periods of the year where there was little work to do, but due to the lack of artificial light, it wasn't like you were missing much anyway. For entertainment, you did nothing, although there was church on Sundays (which is why anyone went), and for distraction you had the periodic interludes where gangs of some warlord's men would come by, rape you wife and stick something pointy in your stomach. If you were lucky you might make it to 60, but you'd spend a significant portion of the time sick, and in many cases, pain. I'm not talking "I wish I had a new iPod pain", I'm talking "please someone chop off this leg" pain.
> We must realize how other humans expressed their individuality,
> and realized their hopes and dreams.
I can answer that too: you didn't have those.
For the first time in recorded history we, as a race, believe that things can actually change. There's only been one period in recent history where people had the same sort of upward mobility as we enjoy today: during the black plague when everyone was dying.
We live better than kings did. Never forget that.
Maury
Not materialized? (Score:2)
The materialization of the benefits from the machines may be "a grand illusion" to the author, but certainly not to me.
How is this related to technology? (Score:2)
Of course it's a good idea to think about technology and how it changes our lives (and it's not all good, obviously). But a lot of the stuff I read in the review is hardly related to technology itself. It seems to be a lot of unrelated, unsubstantiated claims and a lot of fuzzy hippy talk. That's too bad, because there exist authors that have substantiated these claims much better.
Let's just have a look at a few of the statements:
Please explain to me, exactly how does "mastering the techniques of using a computer" equal "being forced to accept a [particular] way of viewing the world"?
So you're saying, the educational system (in your country) apparently sucks. What does this have to do with technology?
Wait, so now we're suddenly discussing the state of the educational system in particular countries (which, apparently, do not have [good] government-subsidized colleges)? What does this have to do with technology, again?
Including, might I add, our survival (of the current amount of people sustained by earth, anyway). Fine with me if you strive for an earth which will have, in time, only 1 billion people living on it (just pulling this number out of my ass, but without technology earth can sustain only a fraction of the 6+ billion that are currently alive), but please be aware of the consequences of having no technology at all. The point is of course, using any 'tools' can be considered technology, so where do you draw the line? Some nuance would really help here. It's impossible to say "so technology is bad, lets just not use it altogether".
This has nothing to do with technology, but with a world-view where everything is measured by its value (economical or otherwise). Just because we have models to do so, does not mean it is what *I* consider the thing that makes my live valueable, is it? Nor is this necessarily connected to technology. It could be, but please substantiate this claim.
Why?
Anyway this is where I stopped reading, you can go on like this for the rest of the review basically. If the book is anything like the review suggests, I won't bother reading it.
Ahhh. Jacques Ellul, the anarchist. Günther Anders also comes to mind. I think you'd be much better of reading one of their books instead of the one that's reviewed here.
Good subject, wrong book (Score:1)
(http://autogeny.org/)
ps -- in the interest of full disclosure, the author is yours truly. But it comes reccommended with blurbs from, among others, Ray Kurzweil, Eric Raymond, and Vernor Vinge.
Haven't we heard this before? (Score:2)
So what's really different if one makes it
"From the day a child of the 9th century BC begins his education, he is confronted with mind-numbing statistics, numbers, and facts via writing -- which he must accept. Perhaps even more important, he must master its "techniques" as the sine qua non tool to be successful in life."
I think Plato kvetched about the same thing... and somehow culture survived. As it will survive the computer, at least until the Singularity comes along.
Probably rubbish... (Score:1)
The Crux (Score:1)
The real question we have to ask is can we really adequately handle ourselves in a world where technology continues to progress this fast?
We very nearly destroyed ourselves once already by creating a technology the ramifications of we were not ready mentally or nationally to cope with (a|h-bomb, cold war, aside: the first h-bomb was tested before scientists were able to determine if it would or would not ignite the atmosphere). When will it happen again? Will we succeed in destroying ourselves next time?
What can we do to ensure a more thorough understanding and preparedness of present and future innovations? Not for the scientists, but for the public and the politicians?
Technology and facism (Score:1, Interesting)
Namely, that the German Jews didn't have guns. And the French didn't have tanks. And Belgium didn't have the Maginot line.
In other words, technology is the enabler of facism. Throughout the 1950's, the Russian people viewed Stalin as a hero, even as he slaughtered millions. Why? Because radio and newspapers told them so.
It's only when technology filters down to the lower levels of society that the dangers of misuse are tempered by equal-access. Any new technology is inherently proto-facist, especially weapons and media, i.e. the internet.
Who first got rich on the internet? Large corporations who already had data centers and programming staff. Next in line is the government, who finally figured out how to build large data centers.
Notice any cross-continental wars going on right now? Coincidence?
Can't tell reviewer from the author (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 21, @05:46PM)
A second problem is, the reviewer didn't address Who is this book addressed to? This reviewer appears to be caught up in the book, and the review is largely a retelling of what the book asserts.
A third problem is the review doesn't match the quality usually associated with the publsher: O'Reilly. O'Reilly books are generally in the Stewart Brand "access to tools" cultural-philosophical penumbra. This year incidentially is the 35th anniversary of the 1972 Whole Earth Catalog.
The reviewer hasn't distinguished "What is the question?". Is the book about computers, education, culture, philosophy, existential anxiety or the emptiness of the unexamined life?
I have been recently thinking back to the Energy Crisis of 1972 and 1979 and asking "What have we learned?" "What did we change about our society as a result of those crises?" "What myths have we wrapped ourselves in as a society in the last 28 years?". The choice of questions drastically conditions the audience and assertions.
Broken paradigm... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:25PM)
The whole paradigm of "Battling for SELF" is a fallacy, it's logically flawed. Who's battling for that self... who wins, who loses? To whom or what are you loosing yourself? How can you lose yourself to something outside yourself, without having given yourself away in the first place? If you are at battle with yourself, then you have already lost.
Technology is a tool. You don't lose yourself to a hammer, unless perhaps you foolishly split your own cranium with it. Even then it's not the hammer to which you were lost, but your own foolishness or carelessness. The problem never was the tool. It's always been the tool user. The distinction between the one who builds with the hammer and another who bludgeons with it. The hammer is never the issue, and the inherent problems surrounding the tool have always been and continue to be deeply human. That's been the case since paleolythic times and our lot, whether the tool is a flint knife or a thermonuclear device.
The difficulties facing us are the problems created by amplification. Our tools amplify our strength, our speed, our intelligence. However that amplification is indescriminate. The gun doesn't care if it's used to feed a village or slaughter that village. The act of amplification without the wisdom of foresight to manage the products of that amplification are the issues we now face. Our primate brains are driven by emotions, and among the strongest is survival. The want to control, the drive to horde, the impulse to dominate, these are all ways that our primate forebearers survived. These very same impulses amplified bring us to the brink of our own undoing. When men take the want of control, the desire to horde and own, the impulse to dominate to their insane technologically amplified limits, the world we have today isn't just understandable, it's unavoidable. Look at corporate business, look at our governments, look at our churches, corrupted and subjugated by a powerful wealthy few, playing out their primate drives amplified a billion-fold to the detriment of all humanity and for that matter all life itself on this tiny planet.
The advent of automation should have freed millions to pursue lives of self fulfillment and discovery, increased productivity, wealth, and abundance should have resulted in a new era of growing human understanding and fulfillment. Instead an increasingly small goup of people become caught up in a never ending cycle of self consumption, and hedonism, power mongering, while the vast majority are left falling further and further into a life given by growing poverty, endless drugery, and little satisfaction. Every single measure of wealth and personal autonomy shows the masses have been robbed of the benefits generated by advances of technology. On the other hand, the weathy are far wealthier, wildly wealthier, rediculously wealthier. And instead of addressing the fundamentally broken, illogical, unsustainable nature of this paradigm, the naked apes in this society buy lottery tickets so they can become one of the dominant primates. Technology is a means. It will however make possible the extinction of our species if we don't do some very powerful evolving in the next decade or two.
We need to address our humanity, own it, be responsible for it, and be present to it's pervasive influence. We need to be conscious of our own tendencies, and begin the process of moving from the adolescence of our species to a technological adulthood. The wisdom of not using technology to inflict our egos upon one another and the surface of our world. The intelligence of not letting our tools and our basest instincts determine our future, or there will cetainly be no future save the fossil record.
Part of what it means to mature as a species is to begin looking at what serves our future, enobles our endeavors, honors that which is most magnificent in the human spirit, and ultimately preserves our posterity. Technology is not going away unless we go away. We can no longer serve the past, we must invent the future. To tha
pick up a dead tree (Score:1)
Nothing I can say will come anywhere close to dispelling all the confused notions I'm reading.
First of all we are moving away from mechanization and toward automation.
There is a huge difference between the two.
Read the wiki on Marshall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan [wikipedia.org]
How to produce five chickens from one feather (Score:2)
It is well known that health and happiness come, not from using mechanical devices or electronic gadgets, but from using your mind and body to achieve things. But the author of this article - and by the look of things the author of the book too - sounds shrill, verging on hysterical.
I must admit, I didn't manage to read the entire thing, I must one of the impatient technophiles, but there is, to be fair, a core of truth in what he says - people are increasingly made to believe that they are helpless without electronic gadgets, ready made meals and mechanical aids. The amazing thing is how much people buy into it, considering how little truth there actually is in it.
We've had this discussion before - a lot of people on
Fucking Luddites Will Be Crushed (Score:2)
These fucking Luddites are nothing more than a vestigial nuisance. They will be crushed under the tank treads and metal feet of The Machine, and the rest of us who are willing to embrace the fruits of technology and become one with it will be better off for it.
Normally I take no issue with people choosing to live their lives however they see fit, and I'll actively fight long and hard for their right to live in tents or caves or whatever makes them happy. But when they start advocating a deliberate slowdown in technological progress then they make themselves the enemy of intelligent life- whether it be it human, machine, or somewhere in between. Like all barriers to progress they must either be circumvented or destroyed.
"Dark Age?" (Score:2)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/niss_the_ai)
What planet is this book referring to? The problems that the writer sees may or may not be real, but they've got very little to do with those faced by people in the actual Dark Age.
Now: Angst, ennui, malaise
Then: Plague, barbarians, famine, monarchy...
Uh no... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://hoodlumzproductions.com/)