Slashdot Mirror
New Technology Creating Isolated Loners = Old News
alkali sent in the link to a silly Washington Post story about how the Internet isn't the first technology that made people stay home alone instead of going out to socialize. Bread baking, vaccination, and plumbing are other human advances cited here that threatened to turn us all into sit-at-home loners. Ah, for the good old days when we all hunted and gathered (and sometimes starved and died) together!
Before cars, you knew your neighbors, you pretty much had to. You knew the faces of everyone withing a 5 minute walk of your house, and often you knew the history and relationships between them. With cars, 30 seconds after you have left your driveway, you are little better off than if you were in a town 100 miles away.
When a crime happened, the criminal was almost aways someone within an "easy walk" from the victim, which meant that the word would get around and often the criminal would be punished without the police even getting involved. Now, I can easily drive to a town 100 miles from here, kill someone, and drive back. No one would notice that I was gone for the afternoon, no one where the victim lived would notice a stranger from out of town. Solving crimes are much harder now.
Think of all the crimes that are commited directly with cars (road rage, drunk driving, etc.) or would not be easy without them such as most robberies.
With a car, if I have a serious problem, I can just pick up and move across town, or across the country quickly and easily. Instead of working out your problems, you leave your problems behind.
Before there were cars, the church was the focal point of social interaction. It was the only way that you could easily get to see everyone you wanted to see, and you had to see even people you didn't want to.
Before cars, you lived near your extended family, you knew if there were strangers in the neighborhood, you knew your grocer. There was a real "community".
Before cars, we all got a lot more excersize. We consumed a lot less energy and raw materials.
Ok, so do I think cars are evil? No. But I think that TV gets blamed for a lot more problems than it deserves and cars get blamed for far fewer. We like cars. We would have a hard time living without it. OTOH, we can imaging living without a TV.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Interenet is certainly NOT the best thing since sliced bread. In fact, the Net comes up FOURTH in turning people into lonely nuts who talk out loud when nobody else is around.
The first technology that makes people talkking when nobody else is around is the RADIO.
When you listen to somebody who talk nonsense on the radio, sometimes you talk back.
Ahhh... Please don't tell me you NEVER talk back to a radio before.
The next come the telephone.
Telephone ring, you pick it up, and "Yelow!" Hah!
Then it comes the teevee.
You watched Nixon on the tube right? You remember the guy going "I am NOT a crook !"? You remember you saying "Yeah, sure."?
Today, with the Net, you can type, talk, dance, wink and do everything you want, even when nobody is PHYSICALLY AROUND.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Then there's be the mandatory 40 trolls chanting in unison "1,2,3,4 down with katz we want no more! 5,6,7,8 that fag malda's gonna pay!" Oh.. I forgot.. there will be exactly ONE well-written critique, but it was moderated down to -1, flamebait while the clever "Katz you suck!" troll got a +4, inciteful.
I can tell whoever wrote that has never been to my house. My computers are buried in 8" of crap, old mcdonald's wrappers, spent mountain dew cans, and a trashcan that so much mass right now it's starting to generate nuclear energy (I guess that's what I get for not emptying it more than once a season). But how does this relate to hunting for food? Well.. with all this stuff down here, when the lights go out.. well, that's when the fun starts. Remember the Nuclear Trashbasket? Well, it's also alive. It's home to over 80,000 distinct lifeforms (nevermind most of them are bacteria).. and every now and then one of them develops sentience in a flash of nuclear energy and some amino acids mixed in from one of the buried Sausage Egg McMuffins. At 3:00am after a long day of coding these things can be a real b*tch to kill - I've found strangling them with cat5 works remarkably well, but beware - some of them belch a terribly offensive smell not unlike what you might get from a sysadmin after one of the mains goes out.
Of course, I don't expect anyone to actually rival Shakespear himself. He's merely an example that came to mind, simply because he demonstrated such mastery.
My point is not so much that no ones' life CAN be enriched by IRC; rather, I think many people's lives have been, or are going to be, devastated as a result of IRC (and others). Additionally, I think most peoples' lives are not improved on the aggregate that use IRC moderately. Granted, there are a number of jobs, places, towns, etc. that have little to do. However, I feel the vast majority of them are not nearly as hopeless as initially percieved. One thing you can be sure of though, is that if EVERYONE is your podunk town were to take the same attitude and resort to a reclusive IRC lifestyle, there would be absolutely NOTHING. Is this a trend that society should encourage? I don't think so.
PS: My problem is not so much with the one-way informational side of the internet. It is with the more real-time interactive forums, particularly IRC, that have an incredible ability to draw users attention for hours on end. (Unlike any other socially accepted activity. e.g., TV (though idiots manage to do it))
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I agree. It can be extremely valuable in keeping in touch with friends and family. I regard that kind of communication, however, as being substancially different from the typical IRC communication. In your scenario, you are communicating with people you already know. This, in my opinion, makes the social aspects far more significant, as you are using it more to bolster and facilitate your "real" social life, as opposed to substituting it. Another key difference is, your friends likely aren't "addicts", and as such, they have other things to do than stay online for hours on end...which makes it much more difficult for you the get into the habit of abusing.
ICQ and IM, don't, to my knowledge, provide much of a forum for people who don't know each other to discuss similar interests. However, it is similar enough to IRC, that I suspect similar problems may very well occur, if they haven't already. Likewise, I've SEEN evidence of many slashdot users repeatedly hitting refresh, and completely engrossing themselves in it for, what must be, many unproductive/non-social hours. I've even been guilty of it myself, to some extent...now?!? heh =)
While you may be right that text is a very powerfull tool in representing emotional content, it is only powerfull if put in the right hands in the right situation. Most people aren't Shakespear. Nor do most people try to write like Shakespear. Without using tools like the metaphor, even the english language is crippled. This is particularly true when the bulk of IRC users use only a small subset of the english language. Worse yet, they resort to certain non-word expressions out of force of habit (e.g., "haha", "ttyl", emoticons, etc.)...which unfortunately constitute the vast majority of IRC discussion. You combine all of these factors into what is strictly an abstraction, devoid of tone of voice, posture, expression, etc, and you begin to get some idea of just how naked IRC truely is.
If you want empirical proof, try visiting your average IRC channel. Or if you are more devious yet, try viewing some "private" conversations on IRC. You will discover what most truely consist of.
While I agree with you somewhat, in that applications like IRC CAN provide some unique opportunities that real life does not, I do not believe that the average person will benefit from it on the aggregate.
For certain forms of support, which lend themselves to "intellectual" (using the term loosly) support, IRC and newgroups may perform quite well. In other words, I believe 2% of the population, out of my ass, with problems (e.g., disfigurment, hearing, speach, you name it) may theoretically benefit. For example, those with body odor problems, can seek "intellectual" advice on cures, treatments, "work-arounds", you name it, free from "real life" social pressures. In reality though, I think that most (but not all such forums are poor...as those who respond frequently aren't qualified or experts by any stretch of the imagination). Additionally, as I've mentioned repeatedly, I think it presents a great, but underestimated, threat through overusage.
While the consistent conveyance of emotion may not be strictly necessary for the bulk of human interaction, ask yourself if their might be any negative repercussions as the result of being denied the "unnecessary" emotional content. I, atleast, believe that we, humans, depend on a certain level of social interaction (which a life consisting mostly of IRC denies). If you do not believe this is the case, consider the possibility that most IRC interactions (devoid of emotional content) could be replicated by relatively primitive "AI" bots...at least in the short term. Though a bit out on the limb...I find the notion of a healthy social life that strictly (or even mostly) revolves around interaction with deterministic bots (although, to my knowledge, we don't yet have AI/computers that are quite convincing enough) to be extremely hard to swallow....
As for the rest, I agree with you, at least as long as you seem realize the necessity of real human interaction (at some point) as well. In moderation, IRC (and company) can contribute to an otherwise healthy lifestyle... My experience, though, is that many people don't use it in moderation.
Sure, these internet forums do provide some unique opportunities. However, the various negative aspects can not be ignored. Although it is difficult to quantify, I do feel that the aggregate effect on society as a whole is generally negative, even if most users limit themselves to, say, 2 hours a day.
I agree with you in that TV sucks. For me, atleast, most every show is so mindless that you couldn't pay me to watch more than a half hour a week. I can't just sit there and watch for more than a few minutes at a time; it is very much against my nature. I really do feel sorry for those kids brought up on television (e.g., come home from school, and watch till bedtime, ignoring a few interruptions such as dinner). I'm convinced that this lack of mental activity ultimately leads to a grossly underdeveloped intellect (not to mention intelligence itself).
While you are probably correct, in that 1 hour of IRC may indeed be better than 1 hour of TV, that does not mean that in present day terms IRC is a lesser threat. Most educated people have come to understand TV as a thing to be avoided; that is not the case with these internet chat forums, it's being sold as the best thing since sliced bread and with no understanding that internet addiction is very real. Also, IRC provides more entertainment relative to TV. This point is particularly crucial for the more educated/mobile groups...where neither TV would never attract them in droves.
Vaccination was invented by the Englishman Edward Jenner, not by Louis Pasteur.
He noticed that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox, and so he vaccinated people with cowpox. (The cowpox virus is now known as vaccinia).
Pasteur did much more important work overall. He showed that micro-organisms could infect a previously sterile medium, thus disproving the spontaneous creation theory in favour of the germ theory. He invented Pasteurisation, of course. He did work on vaccination, and I think he was the first to explain why vaccination worked. But he wasn't the first to vaccinate people.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
Slashdot.
Rob, look what you've done!
Either something was missed or ignored... As an earlier poster pointed out, North America is a pretty poor place to live, for the most part. You may have noted that humans did not develop as a species in a climate that in any way resembles even the relatively hospitable climate of the West Coast. Ironically, given the fear many people have of this environment, humans come from the jungles of Africa, in which region the societies the original poster is referring to lived.
I'm also wondering which tribal group you're referring to when you say "California Indians." A bit of quick research on my part shows a number of different tribes that inhabited this region, and I'm wondering if this is perhaps not so much a "natural" tribal grouping as one forced upon them when the Europeans came through looking for land. Part of this comes from the fact that none of my data indicates that any of the coastal dwellers relied mainly on acorns, perhaps they had been displaced at least once before? I'm interested to hear about the history of this group, especially because the time period you describe was one during which life became increasingly demanding on the Native Americans, as they were forcibly assimilated into our 'civilized' society.
I understand that a lot of people become annoyed when asked to cite information, so if it's not readily at hand, don't bother, but I'm wondering what your source is when you state that archeologists believe that the CIs had an idyllic lifestyle?
And, personally, I don't mind a trek of 50 to 100 miles. Sounds like about two weeks of light hiking.
Peace.
---sig---
California Indians (who lived in "hunter-gatherer" mode until roughly the 1920's when developers ran them off the costal lands they inhabited) would often starve to death when the local acorn-producing trees would stop producing acorns for a season.
Acorns were the staple of California Indians. And they only keep for about a year, best. In the event when acorns would dry up in one area, you would have two choices (according to my Grandfather, who lived in hunter-gatherer mode until he was run off his village by greedy developers): you either starve, or you had to walk to the San Joaquin Valley from where they lived (along the coast near Morro Bay), a trek of 50 to 100 miles, all on foot.
Archaeologists consider the California Indians as having lead a relatively "idealic" life compared to most primitive people in that they didn't starve to death all that often.
The research that the earlier poster was referring to was referring to much earlier civilizations than the Native American tribe your grandfather belonged to.
WHAT RESEARCH?!?
He just started making assertions about how ancient cavemen had better lives than us "moderns." Then he goes on and says I haven't read enough about this to say with certainty,.... Doesn't sound like state-of-the-art anthropological research to me.
Frankly, I started with anecdotal information because it's more personal to me that way. And it's more personal to the couple of anthropologists who've wanted to poke and prod me as an example of a native american who has gone from cave-man status to a high-level of integration into our technologically sophisticated society. (That is, if you read the anthropological research, you'll find that it boils down to either researching artifacts, or statistical analysis of stories from folks like me.)
It's much more accurate than those idiot deconstructionist feminist "archaeologists" who keep pointing to those chubby little fetishes from 20,000 years ago and proclaiming that ancient cavemen must have been exclusively goddess worshippers, when for all we know those little fetishes were the cavemen equivalent of pornography.
As to acorn flower: you have to leach it a *lot* to get rid of the bitter taste. That bitter taste is tannic acid--and in large amounts it can make you really sick. Once the flower has been leached properly, the result is something a little hardier than whole wheat flower. Quite tasty if done right.
Either something was missed or ignored... As an earlier poster pointed out, North America is a pretty poor place to live, for the most part.
/. that regularly. The posts about North America being a relatively poor place to live was posted after I visited here, and I have only just seen them.
:-)
I don't inhabit
You may have noted that humans did not develop as a species in a climate that in any way resembles even the relatively hospitable climate of the West Coast.
Of course. However, the reasons why this is so is still being debated by anthropologists.
The theory I personally tend to stick to is that we are "aquatic" apes. That is, we evolved from apes in Africa who were forced to spend a lot of time in the water (hense, our strong "diving reflex" which is not shared by many simians).
As to the west coast environment--the Spanards who first discovered Alta California noted that the environment was quite pleasent. They further noted that many of the native inhabitants seemed relatively "lazy", given how idealic things were. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the reasons why a high technological civilization was not created in California was because things were so ideal (relatively speaking) that there was little pressure on California Indians to create infrastructures Europeans did in order to improve their chances of survival. (That is, things like agriculture and cities were invented to promote mutual survival in harsh environments.)
Ironically, given the fear many people have of this environment, humans come from the jungles of Africa, in which region the societies the original poster is referring to lived.
First, the original poster had nothing to say about Africa. He only commented that hunter-gatherers only hunted and gathered about 5 hours a day, 3 days a week, though he hadn't read that much on the subject.
Second, it's unclear that ancient man in Africa had all that good a time of it. In fact, had things been ideal in Africa, some anthropologists I've read have suggested that there would have been little (if any) pressure for ancient homo-sapiens to expand outward and into Europe.
I'm also wondering which tribal group you're referring to when you say "California Indians."
Salinan. Our range was (and largly still is) the area around the Hunter-Liggot Military Reservation, ranging to Morro Bay in the south and Atascadero to the east. Most of my family still lives in that area, by the way--the last time I checked with an elder, most of the folks in my tribe (or the "families") still live around Morro Bay or Atascadero, with a few having migrated as far south as San Luis Obispo.
A bit of quick research on my part shows a number of different tribes that inhabited this region, and I'm wondering if this is perhaps not so much a "natural" tribal grouping as one forced upon them when the Europeans came through looking for land.
I could blather on for a few gigabytes on this topic. However, the short answer is that there was little interest by the Spanard Conquistatores (and the 49'ers who later showed up) to do any form of forced migration. Most of the tribal groups along the coast of California were defined largely by natural boundaries--that is, the border between the Salinans and the Chumash to the south was the southernmost range of the Salinas Valley. The Chumash were separated from the Gabrillienos in the Los Angeles basin area by the San Fernando moutain range. The Oholones from the Salinans in the north by the northernmost range defining the Salinas Valley. And so forth. (Note that this is all off the top of my head, and I reserve the right to have screwed up the names.)
Part of this comes from the fact that none of my data indicates that any of the coastal dwellers relied mainly on acorns, perhaps they had been displaced at least once before?
Acorns were a staple of costal California Indian tribes, especially those who inhabited areas where a lot of oak trees dwell. Unfortunately, the Spanards considered acorns "pig slop"--one of the reasons why California Indians were slopped in large hog slops in the missions. When the Spanards attempted to convert California Indians, one of the first things they did was to abolish acorn consumption by burning a number of trees down, or destructively harvesting oak trees for mission construction.
The upshot of this is that when the Bureau of Indian Affairs decided to do a survey of the California Indians, the first extensive survey they did was in the 1910's--and is largly inaccurate due to the way they gathered information. (For example, the Salinas Tribe is marked as "extinct" because the surveyers would ride around on horseback, go into various bars, and ask "are there any Indians here?" Given the fact that up until about the depression it was virtually impossible to prosecute a white man for murdering an indian, and given the fact that a popular white sport was murdering indians, by and large my relatives would answer "fuck no; nobody but us mexicans here.")
And once a few would amit to being Indian, the surveys would ask them what they personally ate. And by then, given that most of the oak trees in the Salinas Valley were destroyed a few years before, most of them would answer "wheat flour" instead of "acorn flour."
I'm interested to hear about the history of this group, especially because the time period you describe was one during which life became increasingly demanding on the Native Americans, as they were forcibly assimilated into our 'civilized' society.
Let me recommend a few books.
Brusa, Betty War, "Salinan Indians of California and their neighbors," NatureGraph.
(This book discusses what evidence for the Salinan people (my ancestors) exists from pre-contact times, and what that evidence suggests.)
Kroeber, A.L., "Handbook of the Indians of California." Dover.
(This is the resarch paper that I mentioned before which was gathered largly by asking who was Indian in the local bars. While parts of it are inaccurate, it does paint an interesting picture of the area in the 1920's, when the research was completed.)
Heizer, Robert F., "The Destruction of California Indians", U. Nebraska Press.
(This is an interesting book in that it paints a picture of the treatment of California Indians from the 1840's through to the 1870's that is quite different from the stuff they normally teach in school. It's an interesting book in that there is no commentary; just reprints of old letters, newspaper articles and eyewitness accounts, gathered in chronological order.)
Hinton, Leanne, "Flutes Of Fire: Essays on California Indian Languages." Heydey Books.
(This is an interesting cultural and linguistic survey.)
Of course nothing here really quite replaces listening to my grandfather bitch about whites, or listening to my mother's stories about how my grandfather used to bitch about whites....
I understand that a lot of people become annoyed when asked to cite information, so if it's not readily at hand, don't bother, but I'm wondering what your source is when you state that archeologists believe that the CIs had an idyllic lifestyle?
Oh, no problem. I have about a dozen other books on native americans in general, as well as a couple of other surveys on California Indians. I gathered them largly because I wanted to learn more about my tribe that wasn't learned from family members with huge chips on their shoulders and an outright hatred of anything higher-tech than a couple of rocks ground down into a mortar and pestle.
Of course I had little luck; ever since Kroeber declared me and my family "extinct", it's hard to find anyone who has bothered to do one whit of archaeological research.
(If you like, I can dig up the list from a box under my bed sometime.)
Anyways, this is largly based on the first book mentioned above, as well as the handbook survey. Also keep in mind that "idyllic" is a relative term--that is, it's "idyllic" in the sense that folks seldom starved to death, and actually had enough leasure time to tell stories, throw the occassional party, and play gambling games.
And, personally, I don't mind a trek of 50 to 100 miles. Sounds like about two weeks of light hiking.
Yeah, but it's a bitch when you haven't had anything to eat in a week except knawing on some leaves and some old jerky. And it's even more of a pain when you realize the hike is across a 5,000 foot gain...
First, people find ways to express emotions in text-only media. Certainly, these are positive expressions of emotion, but not all emotions so expressed are positive. (Some emoticons, name-calling, and general intellectual disdain are all examples of positive expressions of negative emotions.)
Second, what's so bad about people who don't like interacting like the "average" person? If we had no online chat, and everyone had to interact in "normal" ways, we'd all be the same: BORING.
Third, online chat is just an electronic, high-speed version of the personals pages in many newspapers. People put messages in personals columns, and wait for replies. More and more of this is moving on-line - especially for people who aren't desperately seeking sexual partners - but you still see ads in papers for people looking for roomates, selling cars, etc. It would be a total pain in the ass to sell a car or find a roommate by talking face-to-face with every person you meet.
Finally, the lab-rat analogy (or the exercise example, for that matter) are Old News (tm). Most truckers sit on their asses all day, but nobody conducts studies saying, "The shipping industry will lead to 'a whole new crop of addict, or social problems!'"
I'm sorry you used the Internet as a crutch. I'm glad you figured it out and changed your behavior. But that's your story - not mine, not that of many people.
Should the government ban alcohol because drunks act stupid and do dumb things? Oh, wait, we already tried that.
Well, should we ban newspapers, because people read those "flat" sources of human interaction rather than talking face-to-face with people? Oh, wait, that pesky First Amendment thing.
And so on. Live and let live. Just enjoy the ride, and learn from your mistakes.
Aren't wireless modems and laptops wonderful?
Soundeffects cue: Truck horns and tire squeals, loud.
^(%$##*#NO CARRIER
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Yeah. How long are you gonna continue to be pissed just because they wouldn't let you get in on the IPO?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
The "ancient nomads" had abundance because of a lack of population, not a lack of technology.
It's a common misconception that ancient peoples had some sort of "nobility" because of a lack of technology. There is no nobility in ignorance. Technology is simply a byproduct of knowledge.
Furthermore, it is even more common for people to get defensive and to ridicule the lives of "modern people" without knowledge of any facts when someone points out a negative impact of ignorant primitives.
--
Yep, I remember when I used to get a lot of chatting done when we used to take communal trips to the outhouse...
Then again, I can chat on irc via wireless ethernet while I'm on the toilet today...
Nah, the Chinese had that figured out long before Gutenberg, along with gunpowder and other nifty stuff.
Also, there are a few chat systems out there where you can talk, not just type. What do people think of this?
Here I am, sitting by my computer, interacting with something that writes back at me. We are exchanging ideas here, not kisses or hugs. Yes, maybe I'm losing something, but is it so important?
Animals kiss and hug. Cats lick each other, chimps pick lice and ticks off each other. Physical contact is not intrinsically human, it's an animal instinct.
Conversely, we are doing what seems to be an exclusively human activity, we are exchanging ideas on a purely abstract level, something no other animal has been able to do.
Perhaps those critics of computers and the internet are somewhat handicapped in that they cannot feel empathy for other humans without a physical contact. I feel pity for them.
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
With the internet, I can interact in a quasi-normal way with other people with whom I can exchange ideas about other subjects than the weather. I'm continuoulsy polishing my social skills. Karma-whoring, the wish to submit "Interesting", or "Insightful" comments, for instance, have a strong influence on curbing my trolling tendencies here on /.
In older days, people who are geeks were probably more isolated than today. What do you get if you have an intelligent person who feels more or less different from his neighbors? Could some extreme cases become serial killers?
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
With the "Y2K bug" already fading from memory and the earth having survived yet another solar flare, the collective known as Slashdot continues to dissect the news and current events of the world they define by reinforced perception narrowing. "I don't need to actually read the article before commenting," said Anonymous Coward, "Nobody knows who I really am, I could be halfway across the planet or your next door neighbour!" Experts agree that the community formed by geeks of all persuasions will be instramental in forming the core of a new interconnected world, where your comments are ranked by people you will never meet, and read by few who will admit to interacting on the physical plane.
Nice and funny story. Nice to think that in past there could really have been comments like those.
However, I feel that Internet is actually bringing people closer together. Not physically, but through things like slashdot, newsgroups and irc. I bet that there would be a lot more people feeling lonely, if internet would not exist. Actually I, and many of my friends, count irc as 'seeing' each other. When I leave from work, and will work from home next day, I will say "see you tomorrow", because we will 'see' each other all day on irc anyway.
When you smile, the world laughs at you.
...what is this 'outside' that they speak of?
One of them is the use of the word "addiction" in connection with activities that these people don't approve of (and, very often, don't understand because their ignorance is appalling). It is intriguing that, while statistics have consistently shown that people spent several hours every day watching television, for decades, the word "addiction" was never invoked by these meddlesome types vis-a-vis TV, because it was *their* addiction.
Many evolving trends have evoked the Meddlehouse Seal of Disapproval, such as comic books, computer games, mind-expansion (which created a *war*)... even early use of the word 'lifestyle' was suspect to these mind police.
The latest rhetoric by the meddlesome vocal minority once again seeks to control our lives by telling us what we shouldn't do, rather than rationally raising and enunciating superior alternatives.
Personally I'm concerned that the gentleman from Stanford spends far too much time studying statistics, extrapolating human behaviors from them, and experiencing unhealthy spasms of fantasy that could be readily alleviated by leaving his office. For example, he might talk to people who actively use the web to inform themselves, enrich their lifestyles, and grow their circle of contacts to a worldwide scope.
And they don't mention tv?
-- filgy
MacOven is predictably easy to use, but has only two temperature settings: hot and hotter. There is no temperature measurement next to either of them and any attempt to contact the manufacturer results in: "It'll work fine, just click on the apple pie. No, you don't want to know, no.. no, just push the button and we'll take care of the rest.. .HONEST YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW! *click*"
When we spent hours at the travel agent waiting for the glorious privilage of being charged an extra 15% . .
When we waited in long lines at the supermarket reading such informative and educational tabloid news such as "Leonardo has alien baby!" . .
When the broadcast media had so much power, one american president (LBJ) was heard to say: "If I've lost [the political suport of] Walter Croncrite, I've lost middle america.". .
When technology news came exclusivly from Redmond in such ZD 'puter rags. . .
When you needed new software, it ment a trip to the When "on-line" ment choosing between Compuserve, Prodigy or your local BBS.
When getting new software for your new 80286 peecee ment listening to the pimply faced kid at the software store extole the virtues of "kewlCAD" and and "reallykewlCAD".
I, for one, welcome these liberating technologies and the positive influance they've had on society.
_________________________
Today, we drive around with the windows rolled up and at speeds that make conversation with the neighbors impossible. So, the front porch is an icon of the past. A shame, but life goes on.
Language has evolved over many thousands of years. We, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.
The ancient nomads had much more leisurely lives than us. They worked something like 5 hours a day, and only 3 days a week at that. I haven't read enough about this to say with certainty, but I'm willing to bet that the number of hunter-gatherers that starved to death doesn't even compare to the number of poor and homeless that starve to death in our society.
*sigh*
As a native american whose grandfather grew up as a hunter-gatherer in the hills above what is now Fort Liggot along the coast in California, I know that anything could be farther from the truth.
My grandfather and his family lived largely on harvested acorns from nearby trees, along with the occassional root they could dig up, and the occassional deer they could fall. They would also gather wood for fires (it gets cold at night), along with gathering wood and grasses for building huts. From the furs of the deer they would catch they would make shoes and blankets for sleeping at night. And they would spend hours carving stone mortar and pestles for grinding acorns. (You just don't gather a few acorns and pop them in your mouth--unless you spend an hour or two grinding down lunch and washing the toxins from the mash, they're poisonous.)
What my grandparents were, was poor in a sense that someone on welfare in our society cannot begin to appreciate.
If you think they could live by gathering for only five hours a day, three days a week, I have a simple challenge for you.
Buy some dried beans from the store. Buy a mortar and pestle. Grind the beans down into a flour, soak it in water, then press them out into patties, and fry them up on a griddle.
Takes a while to cook this mess, doesn't it?
Now factor in the fact that you had to make the mortar and pestle from a couple of rocks you found by the river. Factor in the fact that you had to make the griddle. And factor in the fact that you had to gather the wood to make the fire, along with making the fire by twirling a couple of twigs. Ah, hell; and factor in the fact that you had to gather a bunch of twigs and tie them together in order to make a basket so that you could allow your flour to soak.
My grandfather and my mother and I are Salinan Indians. And there is no way in hell that I would trade my fast-food/car/computerized/grocery store/Gap life for my grandfather's constant battle against starvation and freezing cold.
Apparently the /. crowd is not the most humor aware in the world, so for the benefit of some of the posters:
The article is a joke. It is made up. None of this really happened. There is even a Point to it that you may be able to figure out.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathemeticians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa.
I mentally replaced "mathematician" with "hacker" as soon as I read that. I think this wise man understood as far back as 400AD the danger of people coming in direct contact with the wrong kind of information. He tried to warn us.
So why is it that television, a relatively new technology, doesn't get blasted? I think it's because television does bring us closer together. It offers a limited amount of pre-digested knowledge that everyone can see the same way and learn at the same time without exerting an effort. The Internet OTOH leads people to information and ideas that are raw and varied. The poor Netheads drift away from the mainstream pool of knowledge until they become downright dangerous and wierd. For example, they might rant about some obscure norwegian teen's legal problems, but have no insight into more pressing issues such as who won the "big game" on Sunday and why.
Please, for your own sake, spend some time in front of the television and get back in touch with your fellow man!
numb
In all civilizations some people at least have tried to answer such questions as: How did the universe come about? How old is the universe and the earth in particular? How large are the sun and the earrt? Is man an accident or part of a larger design? Will the solar system continue to function or will the earth some day fall into the sun? What is light? Of course, not all people are interested in such questions. Food, shelter, sex, and television are enough to keep many people happy. But others, aware of the pervasive natural mysteries, are more strongly obsessed to resolve them than any business man is to acquire wealth and power. -- from Mathematics for the Nonmathemetician by Morris Kline, 1967.
Years ago, an old & fairly large IRC channel I belonged to since it's beginning hosted maybe 40 regulars from all over the world. Every day about 3 pm, my time, I would join to exchange opinions and dissect the news. Over the years we all got to know one another's jobs, locations, intellectual positions and often... new job offers, spouses, divorces, new babies etc. There were Net Administrators, National Health Service Administrators, CIS students, Girl Scout leaders, and housewives. One regular, a musician became quite ill. While undergoing Chemo towards the end he was connected to Health experts by our National Health Admin. so that he received 'the best' and newest 'pain managment' A channel home health nurse contacted his 'local area' and arranged 'Hospice Care' to help lighten the load for his wife. The home health care hospice folks notified the channel of his inability to be comfortable in any position but sitting up and recommended a lounge chair which the families resources were not capable of providing. The channel rallied together, contributed the resources and within 1 week a new lounge chair was in his home. These people had never physically met, did not share physical space and probably would never even have spoken in a 'local city/town' because they had little in common besides their interest in #politics! ( like all good irc channels, it eventually faded away after about 3 years) BUT...Isolated, Loners? I think it more reasonable that.. the web/net provides MORE access to human intereaction for like minded people because it alows them to gather and share in ways that life today simply does not provide.
and btw/ no news agency, no horn tooting.. just people reaching out to people..Because! (I choose to believe that things go on like this every day, all over the world and aren't the fodder of interesting 'NET NEWS'
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE