Robots Without a Cause

WG55 writes "Have you noticed that more and more technology is more ingenious than useful? Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian writes in his article Robots without a cause that much technology produced today will change our lives little, if at all. He writes, 'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'"

Comments

Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[palutke]

. . . write articles complaining about how it is being done.

The author cites a bunch of consumer-oriented gadgets as contemporary 'inventions' but seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that _somebody_ has to pay for the development of these things. I may not want to buy a 3G phone, but I want a wind-up radio even less. If it isn't likely to sell, who will pay for development?

It is becoming more and more difficult to produce a new techology in your garage without serious funding. Many amateur (read: non-corporate funded) inventors start out to 'scratch an itch' because a product to do what they want isn't available. I'm spoiled enough that I don't spend much time contemplating how to grow food more effectively (or how to more efficiently meet my other basic needs), so I'm not likely to produce the next big invention that will make Mr. Jeffries happy.

You never know when the next big thing will come

[Anonymous Coward]

If you told someone in the 60's that the government was working on a giant computer network, would many have cared? Probably not. Heck, computers didn't seem to have much purpose to most people, then, either. They were something for the military, big business and sci-fi. But now, it's an essential part of many people's homes. It just takes time.

Why?

[gumpish]

Thanks to the newest wonders of technology we can get robots to do our vacuuming, transmit pictures on our mobile phones and unlock our cars (and adjust their seats) merely by touching them. In the face of this wizardry, Stuart Jeffries has only one question: why?

Because we can.

Re:Why?

[Suidae]

You are exactly right. I have 5 children, so I know what it takes to maintain a household. I think that many people who question the value of things like automatic vacuums and lawnmowers (but not washing machines, dishwashers or refrigerators, hmm) simply dont' have enough busywork to realize the value of labor saving devices. That, or they are simply total slobs.

Perfect measure...

[mgcsinc]

Forget GDP per capita, I think weâ(TM)ve found a new measure for quality of living! In all seriousness, I think the references to rich western culture bring up an interesting point: thereâ(TM)s no measure of a countryâ(TM)s wealth and the contentedness of its people in their lives like the amount of money they spend on amusements and distractions. The consumer crap index, made up of useless innovations, movie and sport industry revenues, and profits of haute-fashion shops for pre-teens.

I'll start living more simply right now

[roystgnr]

By reading only the technophilic-sounding articles which are handwritten and hand delivered to me (that limits me to what, the Unabomber?), and ignoring anything which complains about the free exploration of technology but which was produced with a word processor and uses a global electronic network for distribution.

Hard to predict

[pen]

It's hard to predict what technology will change peoples' lives until after the fact.

This may be true for some, but it's not for me

[beee]

Just because the author seems to believe all robots fall under the classification of useless gadgets doesn't mean the rest of us see them that way. This articles strikes of the typical attitude that non-technically-inclined people get when they see us geeks fiddling with robots.

The truth is, with the generation of people in their late teens and twenties, robots will be not only commonplace, but expected. We've grown up with the first wave of robot companions (Furby!) and it will be far from out of the ordinary for us to expect our vaccuuming to be done by AI.

Not everyone is ignorant enough to excuse robots as mere toys, their application will grow infinitely in the coming years and they will be all the more transparent in our day-to-day lives. Right now we're afflicted with a overflow of gimmick bots that give people the impression all they're only good for entertainment, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Just wait 10 years and see.

Re:This may be true for some, but it's not for me

[dasmegabyte]

Agreed. Do you ever think about the intelligence which controls the emissions in your car, turns on your Mr Coffee in the morning and keeps the fillament from overheating? Do you ever think about the complex switching system that brought these words from my copy of Opera to your eyeballs, or the network of computers and fuzzy systems that put your letter to the gas company on the right truck?

Of course you didn't. Because that's where the real world changing technology is: under the hood, unnoticable, seamless.

You might have noticed, if each of these intelligent systems had given you sass and proclaimed its greatness and autonomy a la the Jetson's world this article's author thinks he lives in. Not everything technological is a shiny new DVD player with a sticker listing its best features on it. And while most gadgetry isn't very satisfying, technology is no more devoid of artful interaction then a poorly utilized paint brush.

My digital camera was a gadget up until I took my first real high contrast shot and felt the urge to print it out. Now it's a tool. Now it's a satisfying part of my personality. And yeah, there are meager innovations in digital photography, and yeah maybe each one is crap. But as long as there are people willing to use these things as tools, and not as simple, flash inna pan gadgets, then all the innovation is socially viable. Ever see Picasso's light pen drawings?

And as for the A8: Have you ever been to the Met, seen the ornate sedan chairs? Nobody ever asks, "what good is this carved wood scrolling, this delicate laced cushion? it doesn't enhance our lives." Technology has always been a form of adornment. My car has a feature that dims the lights instead of turning them off. That's part of its charm -- and since I chose to bust my ass to buy the fool thing, it's a part of my life, same as the colour of my socks, my taste in music, and my thoughts on god and the universe. When new friends get in my car and the lights dim, they say "cool." It's trivial, even stupid. But it's part of our shared experience and therefore important.

You are not your khakis

[Ars-Fartsica]

You don't own your stuff, it owns you.

Tyler Durden says USE SOAP.

Maybe, but it depends on how you look at it.

[GotSpider]

I think that the idea of robots is useful, even with what we have today. There have been robots that can mow the lawn for you, that can vacuum for you, and things along that line.

Things like Botball (kipr.org) really help to stimulate the idea of thinking about autonomous systems, and these are high school and sometimes middle school kids working on these projects. Sure, the contests that they run are really just getting the robots to move balls into cages and such, but the underlying point is a big deal. The future for robotics lies in autonomy, and it is a big problem.

It's rather difficult to get a system robust enough to last in an enviornment that you can only protect for as much as you predict (unless you plan on being able to "teach" the robot).

Maybe right now it seems like everything is just "ingenious", but there are some gems among it, and you just need to be a little more patient, the practical applications are the only ones that stick around in the end. Wait another 10 years, then see where we are.

Perspective

[FTL]

The author fails to look at history. "Pointless" gadgets aren't a new thing. A hundred years ago something called "indoor plumbing" was a pointless gadget. It saved one from going to all the effort of opening a window and yelling "gardez loo". But with the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that indoor plumbing was kind of a cool idea.

Every age has new ideas; some of which will last, and some which won't. The cutting edge ones invariably look pointless at the time.

Re:Perspective

[stefanlasiewski]

A hundred years ago something called "indoor plumbing" was a pointless gadget.

From what I know, indoor plumbing was a pretty pointful gadget 100 years ago. Most people wanted it, the benefits were obvious (clean, it's indoors, didn't need to empty the outhouse, you can wash your hands in cleaner water and cut down on disease) but alot of people couldn't afford the installation costs.

I know that in San Francisco 100 years ago, many, many people were installing indoor plumbing.

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[The_K4]

Um....if you live in hurricane/tornado/blizzard prone areas your view on that "wind-up radio" might change. Their IS a market for that product and people will pay for it (and it's development/improvement). Just because 1 person doesn't like/see a use for that product doesn't mean it isn't there. This article misses the point that these "creature comforts" may not make people "happy" or "fufilled" but they make getting my ass outa bed in the morning that much easier. Once i've had my coffee from my auto-timered pot and a shower (using hot water from a water heater with a timer that's a hugh energy saver) i'll be a lot more prepared to go insearch of happiness/fufillment/my next caffine hit.

Things ARE getting a little scary...

[chrisbro]

I think we may be headed towards a self-imposed matrix. I forget what game it is, maybe MOO2, that had virtual reality simulators for your citizens. Think Minority Report too, I think it was, where you can act out your every fantasy for a fee. What if technology like that becomes commonplace, where your every whim can be created and seem absolutely real? What kind of person would you be then? I can already see a kind of wilting away of life through my father, who just comes home from work and plays Everquest until it's time to go to bed. It truly is like he's leading a completely different life that he would much rather pay attention to than the real thing.

I'm not Luddite by any means; I fully welcome every new technology that comes around. But I wonder if our descendants will merely plug themselves into a fantasy world that for all purposes, is real...and what kind of person would be able to resist it and continue advancement in the real world.

But maybe I'm just ranting :)

Re:Things ARE getting a little scary...

[crazyphilman]

But what about people who are truly unhappy? The geek who gets picked on all day in school, and feels isolated and alone, with no one like him to talk to? The guy whose job well and truly sucks, and who wants to do something else at night? The person who has no friends, no one to hang around with outside of work, and very little to make him happy? What about these people? A good, immersive online existence can literally SAVE them. It gives them a virtual place where they can actually be *happy*, and get away from the sordid lives they've been cursed with.

I see technology like this as a Godsend. Anything that can bring a little joy into someone's life is worth having.

I'm not too bad a case, because I don't spend that much time in my games (I tend to spend a lot of time tinkering with hardware, programming, messing with various unices, and such -- it's a hobby). But I certainly sympathize with people who aren't particularly happy about their lives.

And, think about this: when you haven't got a lot of money, you can't fly to Miami for the weekend because you're bummed out and miserable. But you can fire up Grand Theft Auto, Vice City for fifty bucks, and misbehave in a variety of ways with no consequences. Or, if you're into multiplayer, you can go get yourself a nice match against some MechWarriors, or play Tribes on the PSII. It's social, you're meeting other people like you, you're having fun...

I don't see how anyone could find this a frightening thing. It's a wonderful thing.

Depends on What You Want To Do

[weston]

I agree that there's a large variety of consumer gadgets that are largely useless. I bought a 97 Geo Prizm for my last car only because my 85 Nissan Sentra gave out. I don't need a whole lot over a vehicle that works, has a radio and A/C.

But seriously, when it comes to health care or even stuff more trivial like music production, bring on the tech. Yes, sometimes you can do great things with a stethoscope and/or and acoustic guitar, and sometimes I'm content with that. But other times, it's a tool that enables you to do cool things you never could have w/o it. I'm all for Sonograms and Synthesizers. I'm healthier and happier because of both....

Dated Philosophy

[Boxcarwilli]

'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'

Hmmmm, a society that is based on spending $ on crap they dont need is setting itself up for disaster........one should learn to be content as possessions bring only "short term" happiness.

Who's dated philosophy? Buddha.

Robots Without a Cause

[YomikoReadman]

Having read thru the article, I think that this individual wanted nothing more than to Rant on for a couple of pages about how all of the current group of top notch inventors do nothing but make devices to make technology a little bit more personalized. Insofar as the Rant on 3G phones go, they only really take notice of sales of the devices in the UK, which has nothing to do with their sales in other places where the phones were received extremely well, like japan and some places in Central Europe, like Germany. In short, this seems to me like nothing more than a rant against extravagance in technology due to the fact that the author thinks that the time would be better spent trying to improve the life of the impovershed.

Insufferable, upper class twit

[ronfar]

But when a game becomes more satisfying than your job, maybe you should think of getting a new career rather than immersing yourself in ever more sophisticated games software.

Talk about your insufferable, upper class twit. This is a few steps below "let them eat cake" on the hate-o-meter, but not all that many, as it comes from the same place. I don't love my job. Some aspects of it are satisfying, even fun. But then there are the days that stretch before me like the Sahara Desert and I just wait for the clock to get to 5:00 PM. I don't have the luxury of having a new career. I have a job that I tolerate and that pays me a lot better than most of my previous jobs. I feel profoundly lucky to be making a decent, middle class income. However, I'm not Lord Salisbury, I'm not doing my job as a dilletante. This was the best job I could find in my area with my education.

Get a new career? Oh yes, everyone should do that. I'm sure that garbage men are in it because they love the excitement of garbage, and not because it is the way they afford food and a roof over their heads. I'm sure that all the janitors in the world feel the same about sanitation. Why doesn't everyone just work doing what they love? I'm sure the world would run swimmingly.

If someone wants to get home from a hard day of work (ever notice how they don't call it happy-fun-time?) and wants to play a game of Splinter Cell why is it the business of some over paid, stuck up, hack who probably wonders why I don't just jet off to Singapore whenever I feel bored?

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[Otter]

The author cites a bunch of consumer-oriented gadgets as contemporary 'inventions' but seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that _somebody_ has to pay for the development of these things.

He's victim to a common fallacy -- that there's a finite amount of stuff in the world and one can only have TV-glasses at the expense of one's neighbor going without shoes. It's unimaginable to him that if we "discard our possessions and live more simply", the people who make and sell drink-pouring robots will be going without possessions too, as will whoever depends on them for a living.

Oh no! People are enjoying luxuries!

[Nindalf]

...and they're not even the same luxuries I want! Don't they know that there are people starving, and dying of diseases?

This kind of bootless diatribe is as old as language. Expect part 2, "People Were Better When I Was Young," next week.

Broader view

[Quixote]

The author is taking a broader view (a "humanist" view, if you will) of the current state of affairs. To quote him,
This all sounds great fun, but only in a society where all our basic needs are met could we be so pleasurably diverted by gadgets. It's not only fun to be excited by the latest gadget, it gives us the feeling too that we're part of the forward flow of life. It also gives us something easy to talk about: we make connections with people by discussing what our gadgets can do, even by laughing at our own silliness.

He has a point. Look back at the inventors of the really useful devices (like the steam engine, the airplane, electricity, lightbulb, etc.), and see how many of these were invented in the "won't it be cool to do this!" spirit, and how many were in the "if I invent this, it will change the future!" spirit.

It could be that today, thanks to the ubiquitous media, the "gadget" inventions are getting a lot more coverage than the "earth-shattering" inventions. In the old days, these "gadget" inventions probably never made it out of the inventor's shack.

Re:Agreed

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You confuse meaningful, basic-research with mere productization, or development engineering.

You can't put the work of Boole and Fourier or even Graham-Bell and Tesla on par with mating a CCD to a PDA - or the Segway.

100% Fun

[Tony]

My life is whittled down to the basics, so I only concentrate on what's important. Gadgets are just used to fill voids in empty lives.

And what is a 'full' life, pray tell?

Seriously, what do the self-righteously self-deprived do with their copious free time?

My life is filled with useless shit, and you know what? I love it! I am *extremely* content with all my CDs of music (more and more coming from independent labels, as that's where the interesting stuff is), my shelves and shelves of escapist SF, my Tivo full of Farscape re-runs (damn you, sci-fi, for cancelling this great show!), my office full of computer-geek stuff.

Once I lived the spartan life, and I thought great thoughts, and I wrote great stories. I was published once in a while, but eventually the rejection slips became more frequent, and more magazines went belly-up.

And what did I realize? I'm gonna die, and everything I know is going to die with me. So I spend time with friends when I can, and have fun at all times.

And I love the little shit that pervades my life.

public perception of robots

[andy666]

it has been my experience that it is impossible to get a robot to do the simplest things. navigation among clutter, picking up an object, etc. are all research topics. people usually get results in very narrowly defined environments.

periodically when i hear about people at places like the MIT media lab making robots have feelings, it makes me quite annoyed, since it is such a ridiculous topic. hard robotics problems get ignored, and the media doesn't ever write stories about the limitations of robots, which are enourmous.

Article is spot on.

[roryh]

When is luxury not luxury? When it's available 24x7, at every mall and shopping centre, in every town, and every state. Then that's just plain decadence, endemic to an entire country. Technology is a tool like any other, creating wonderful things, but also some socially desructive, needless things, ususally produced at the expense of some Third World country. Look at the 5000 children dying each month of Malaria, and tell me you need an automatic hoover.

Sometimes I feel ashamed to be in the country I am.

Re:Article is spot on.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yes, but 5000 children don't die because you do or do not have an electric hoover- they die because of a natural disease, that technology can at best control, and at worst can do nothing about (the best drugs are beginning not to work).

It's a pity that those children probably can't improve their chances with the best technology to fight Malaria, but that's basically an economic problem- and one that is probably improved by 3rd world workers working for foreign capital (every dollar they bring in, probably means that 5 dollars worth of business is created locally by the time the money has filtered through the local economy). Unless the workers really are slave labour, then that job is probably the best one they can do; their standard of living is higher with the job than without.

A bit defensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scores of replies are the equivalent of "screw this guy!"

We're a bit defensive about this, aren't we? The strong replies are very telling. I have realized there is more to life than acquiring needless possessions. Yet I fall victim to gadgetitis all the time. It is what a 20-something single guy is expected to be interested in. I am perfectly aware of it and it still happens. But at the same time I wasn't offended by anything the author of the article wrote.

A previous post mentioned that it is a form of idolatry, and I have to agree. It is basically the modern-day equivalent of the pursuit of wealth.

I think that this article pushed some people in a way that they don't want to be pushed. Hence the strong responses.

I'm not "confusing" them

[GuyMannDude]

You confuse meaningful, basic-research with mere productization, or development engineering.

My whole point was that the development of Boolean algebra or Fourier series wasn't "meaningful" at the time. It was just a curiosity. As far as the distinction between "basic" research and "development engineering", I'm not sure why you feel that's important. Many important problems get solved as special cases before some bright individual realizes that there is a more fundamental basic principle at work. A silly little beeping trinket may require the engineers to solve some new, very specialized problem. You never know if the lessons learned by solving that problem might carry over and provide insight or be applicable to another, not nearly so trivial technology.

I am sad that there isn't enough money going towards basic research. But there's no use crying about it. I knew a mathematican who worked at Honeywell. He was supposed to be solving a specific control problem but would often divert his energy towards playing with more general, but still related problems. When I asked him how he could get away with doing that, his response was "Well, my bosses have to put up with a little of that if they want me to work for them." Obviously, that was meant as a joke but I think his bosses probably realized that there is a healthy cross-fertilization between working on very applied problems and taking a step back and thinking about the bigger picture. It is my belief that effort expended on developing these yuppie trinkets can find application in other, more important areas.

GMD

On "time-saving" devices.

[Tyler Durden]

I've said something similar to this before, but when I think of where society is heading, I think this selection from the Tao of Pooh is an important thing to consider.

In case the site gets /.ed into oblivion, the most relevant piece goes like this...

Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have LOTS OF TIME. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save you time so you won't have to work so hard.

Does anyone else feel like this? How much of the time do we spend stressing out on work-related pressure is born of necessity and how much is just for gaining status? Or better yet, how much of it is to feed an economic machine that depends on convincing us that killing ourselves to get useless stuff is worth more than the piece of mind we could achieve without actively pursuing said stuff in the first place. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who notices there is a problem here yet I have to suffer under a lot of needless pressure because of others who demand everything "right now" without a thought of why. It wouldn't surprise me if the medical advances made possible by the current economic system are outnumbered by the health problems it caused due to work-related stress. Fuck, I'd rather die 10 years earlier than I would normally if it means that I get to relax and enjoy myself some while I was alive.

Re:On "time-saving" devices.

[borgasm]

I have pondered this very thing as well, and come up with some interesting conclusions:

Let's say that nobody did anything, and people merely lived for living, didn't kill themselves at a "job"...etc. You still have to worry about:

protection

food

shelter

disease

offspring

Back in the day (lets call it 4000 years ago), these responsibilites alone would consume your entire day. After fighting off the bears and forest creatures, you needed to plant your garden, harvest what is in season, tend to your living area, somehow patch that wound on your leg, and maybe try and pass on your genes.

That sounds like a lot more than we do in a typical day. And then you would have to sleep!

What I have realized is that the whole world is a cycle, and everybody, yes everybody, is interdependent.

People work at jobs to provide a service, and in turn, they are compensated, which they use to compensate others who have found better and easier ways to provide their services.

It all comes down to marginal value (correct Economics term?). If you think your time is better spent gardening than working to buy vegetables, then by all means go be a gardener. But if its better to work, and have those things taken care of by somebody who can do it more efficiently, then that is a choice you have to make.

Example: Cable Internet vs. Dialup

Dialup - $10/month, Cable - $40/month

I think cable is worth it, because the time I save using it is worth far more than $30...This means I get to have more time with my friends, rather than having the extra $30. And that extra time is worth me working a job.

It is entirely possible to live a simple existence, no stress, and doing things all for yourself. You would have time to relax, etc.

But life is a trade-off. You just have to choose what you trade for what...

The Walden Fallacy

[Tony]

Shockingly, he supposes that lasting value in life might come from knowing oneself better, and that real sources of happiness are pusued with fewer contemplative distractions.

Not to sound like a nihilistic hedonist, but... there is no lasting value in life.

In due time, we will all die.

The only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life; our only real duty in life is to increase the amount of joy experienced by others.

The path to death may be joyous or somber or angry; but it cannot be avoided. Every step you take is one step closer to the ultimate demise.

Knowlege is only valuable inasmuch as it contributes to your joy, and the joy of those whom you affect. I enjoy intellectual conversation, and so I value those who seek knowlege.

But are the real sources of happiness pursued with fewer contemplative distractions? For some, yes. For others, no. Me, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my inner complexity requires constant contemplation. I think I have myself figured out fairly well. Occassionaly, I reconsider who I truly am; but for the most part, I merely exist, and enjoy that existence.

But, YMMV, of course. But to assume your purpose in life is another's purpose is the worst kind of self-important drivel in existence.

Gadgets a metaphor…

[velophile]

Most of the comments here are fully about debate of the usefulness and or purpose of new gadgets. I think some folks are so wrapped up in the tech-geek culture that they may be missing the larger point of the article.

What I took from it was that we are turning into our worst nightmares of ourselves. A world where we sit in front of some sort of box all day staring at it as it spews messages about what is right and wrong and the proper way to live our lives. Many of the gadgets we are creating only feed our laziness, giving us more free time to stare at the box. We get fat from the food we cram into our faces while staring at the box for the next proper thing to do. The message I continually receive from the media (maybe itâ(TM)s just my tinfoil hat) is that Iâ(TM)m in some way not OK. That Iâ(TM)m too fat, too ugly, not cool or a bad ass or some other inferiority. However, their nifty little XYZ will fix my world and I just canâ(TM)t live without it. I just donâ(TM)t like other telling me how I should think, especially about myself. Sorry for the diatribe, I guess my fears are that the marketing departments now tell the engineers what to build rather than marketing what theyâ(TM)ve builtâ¦

Hear, hear.

[StarKruzr]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the author can frankly go fsck himself.

Plenty of similar arguments are made about the "worthlessness" of space travel, but what people often tend to ignore is the exponential effect of pure scientific research on useful technology development, not to mention the technological spinoffs from space technology research.

"Contemplate our shame," indeed. He's the one who should be ashamed of himself.

TIVO CHANGED MY LIFE!

[HarveyBirdman]

But seriously, can't these little ideologues stop projecting their miseries, mental issues, genital shortcomings, or whatever is causing them neurochemical dyspepsia upon everyone else?

They guy has caught the basic truth that there's a lot of solutions looking for problems out there in the tech world, but so what? My eight year old nephew has figured that one out. Is it wrong to innovate for the sake of innovation? Does every thought need a definable purpose that serves THE PEOPLE[tm]? A lot of useful and life saving technologies grew out of idle tinkering in a lab somewhere.

Enough with the technoangst already, and the bemoaning of our oh-so-hideous-so-empty-argh-so-very-depressinbgly- HUMAN Western culture. Honestly, this guy sounds like any disillusioned tech head I know when they aren't getting laid enough.

Re:Read Marx

[TheSync]

The challenge of socialism is motivating people to work to create the essentials, and then to give them away to others. Outside of family or tight tribal bounds, it seems to not be generally a human behaviour.

While there is quite a bit of non-earned wealth transfer in the Western democracies through tax policies, socialized health & education, and retirement Ponzi schemes, the only governments that have been successful in breaking the basic human nature of greed and desire for personal property have had to use massive, totalitarian force, often resulting perversely in the death of millions through starvation (China, Russia, North Korea).

On the other hand, capitalism has made enough people so incredibly rich that they don't mind (so much) handing out money to the less well off for free schools, medicine, etc.

MODS ON CRACK

[bitrott]

Why did this get modded up? It's the same kind of blithering high school banter we've been having to put up with on /. since that crap Reloaded film came out. People PLEASE get it through your heads already. Noone wants to hear you spew your BAD sci-fi psychobabble. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand and it's making you look like a junior higher taking pot for the first time, contemplating the existance of twinkies.

sorry, not this cat

[SubtleNuance]

"Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame."

ok, not this guy. Im not going to 'toot-my-own-horn' here, but this is *not* true of everyone. I agree that the NorthAmerica is quickly headed this way, but some of us are actively screaming out in the darkness and trying to convince others to wake up a little.

Brash consumerism, brand fetishism, ecological devistation, work-a-holism are all a product/cause of our the $wealth$ in NA.

So, while I am most certainly not a neo-luddite, I put alot of decisions to the "do I *need* that test?". "What is the environmental/social impact of that purchase?" I read labels. I live in "the city", but buy Local Food, from Local Farmers (novel eh?). I wont paint anything outdoors. I reclaimed all the wood from my demolition to serve anew in my home renovation. I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. I am the President of my Local Green Party Riding Association. I run the neighbourhood composter in my back-yard. I only plant indigenous plants in my yard. I use the library instead of buying my own copies of books. I live in a 100year old townhouse "downtown". I ride my bike to work, and walk to the corner-store, and ride with Critical Mass to eductate traffic.

So, do I think Im better than other people? No, but I do think that other people are mindlessly, and aimlessly being directed by outside influences, driving them to be irresponsible, vapid and destructive to their communities and the planet.

Bottom Line: Simple choices can help dig North America out of its destructive funk - do something to help out please. As a side note, living this way is MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE. I want to RETIRE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE instead of making bankers rich, work 60hrs a week and let strangers raise my children.

Personalization

[Randym]

After fingerprint identification, the car's computer tunes the radio to your favourite stations, the mirrors swivel according to your established preferences, and the driver's seat sculpts itself to your bottom.

Here is where his argument falls down. What is the down side of personalization? AFAIK, there is none. Sure it's ingenious -- it's also tremendously useful.

Alvin Toffler pointed out in Future Shock (1970) that computer-aided personalization would eventually become ubiquitous. He was right. People *want* things that are customized to their personal preferences and, er, sizes.

Here are some ways computers have aided personalization: Firefly (Patti Maes, MIT). Bayesian spam filters (many personal computers). Levi's pants (Levis.com). Design your own car (any automaker's site). Customizable news feeds. Even Slashdot itself. ( You ... probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot...)

I also agree with the posters who pointed out that some innovations have applications undreamed of by their inventors. The Mayans discovered the wheel -- they used in their childrens' toys, and *nowhere else*.