Slashdot Mirror
When Does Technolust Become An Addiction?
An anonymous reader writes "According to a CNet article, an incredible one in three people aged 16 to 24 in the UK would not give up their mobile phone for a million pounds. 'The phone-centric survey, called Mobile Life, was carried out across the UK and questioned 1,256 people aged 16 to 64 on a variety of topics ... So young people really like having a mobile phone and we all love buying gadgets. But before you dismiss this research as stating the bleeding obvious, think about this -- if someone had told you even ten years ago that people would be taking out second mortgages to buy flat screen TVs, would you have believed it?' Is this just the result of deliberately skewed marketing dressed up as research, or is this another indication of western culture's obsession with communication and technology? How much is too much tech?"
We'll find out June 29.
Say it with me: it's only a phone...it's only a phone...
Currently bidding on sig
maybe they value communication with their friends and family more than money...
I've never had a cell phone, and never will. Where's my million pounds?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
if someone had told you even ten years ago that people would be taking out second mortgages to buy flat screen TVs, would you have believed it?
That sounds like a really bad deal (for the closing costs alone). Why wouldn't you just take out a personal line of credit from the bank?
(Obviously, the best solution is: don't buy it if you can't pay for it that month, but we're talking about the lesser of evils)
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
...I had one in the first place. But what do I need one for, when I have my PC to use for communication? :p
If some marketing person asks me what the capital of France is, I say something like "Moscow". If they ask me who the prime minister is, I say "Michael Jackson". If someone is stupid enough to ask if I'd give up my phone for a million pounds, what do you think I'm going to say? These surveys are worthless, and we all have a duty to make them more so.
"Too much tech" - I can understand each word individually, but putting them together that way just doesn't seem to make sense.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Shouldn't this be from the "how-to-get-your-press-release-printed-widely-for- no-apparent-reason" dept?
Other stories under this heading mostly include "Dixons announces that will no longer be stocked in their group stores".
How many of the people mugged for this "survey" actually thought that the herbert with the clipboard was actually going to give them a million quid?
1)give up mobile for £1m
2)buy new mobile
3)profit!
I wouldn't need the numbers from my old mobile as obviously
I'd be disowning my friends and family for hot coke bitches...
Acid House saves Souls
I'd grab the briefcase, throw my phone at them, and run before they could change their minds!
I hope they'd find that a sufficient answer.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I think it's pretty easy to say "no" to a million pounds when you know there's no chance you'll actually get it. If they really had a million pounds right there and the paperwork was ready I bet more than a few of the people who said "no" would say "yes".
;)
That said, I wouldn't give mine up
I can quit anytime.
No, really.
After I get a new Macbook. And we need a flat-panel TV for the den, and some kind of media server. And oh yeah, I want a GPS for the car.
But I'm not addicted. Really.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
I'd probably pay a million quid to have it taken away!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I worked at a cable company (our company was doing a trial of Internet over Cable-TV before cable modems), and people would have their phone turned off before their cable. As a side benefit, this made it difficult for the CSRs to reach them about paying their cable bills once they couldn't pay those either.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
On the other hand. Maybe none of the respondents were actually offered a million pounds, so answered in the negative knowing full well there wasn't a chance in hell they were going to get the money anyway. You know the saying "I'd give my right arm for a night with her" etc etc.?
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
Really, if you're worth a million pounds, she'll find you.
Friends will understand that you don't have the access that they do
Believe it or not, we used to be able to get together and even find mates before cell phones and pagers. Even before answering machines.
Rather, I'm betting that this "survey" didn't have the cash in hand when they asked that question.
Addiction is not just some extra degree of "lust". It's a compulsion that one cannot resist. Not just that one dislikes to resist. And not just a compulsion to do something bad.
Alcohol addiction is the classic: alcoholism. It's not just that one "drinks too much". Or too often, or the wrong stuff. Those are ways to tell someone is an alcohol addict. The alcoholic does not have self control over their drinking. Perhaps they need a drink to destroy their limits, or perhaps there is no initial barrier. Even recovering alcoholics cannot take a single drink, because the effect of that drink on their self control leaves them with no resistance - or is so likely to that they cannot take the chance. But even those not taking any drinks are still alcoholics, because they lack self control over taking it. They are behaving like they have some self control, but it's really gained by a huge, constant effort plugged into social structures, including regular meetings, and lots of conscious training, like 12 step programs.
Techno addiction is rarer, but still happens. There are compulsive shoppers to whom technology, especially media devices, have a stronger appeal than their own best interest. You can tell when people are addicts because they miss rent or meals, but have every new game.
These are all consumption disorders. Americans have them in epidemic proportions. Partly because we consume alcohol, drugs, toys, clothing, food and everything else to feed a desire really created by something else. Usually "spiritual", but most often caused by a family problem, especially early in life. And, as a buddhist will tell you, feeding the desire just makes it stronger. The resulting attachment to the material forces us further from the spiritual, which increases the desire, more consumption - the Wheel of Living.
--
make install -not war
You are correct.
I think part of the reason is that advertising has become so pervasive, and so effective. Many people think that they need these things to be happy, and it's a view that is constantly reinforced on TV.
I think another reason is that people consider collecting stuff to be an acheivement. People's homes look like showrooms, equipped with the latest tect, the trendyist furniture, and everything is accessorised. Much of this spending is fueled by debt.
They spend much of their free time thinking about how to best improve their home, and don't think about personal improvement (learning new skills, etc) as something worth pursuing.
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that we have become (well, the middle class, anyway) much wealthier in the last 10 - 15 years, and this accruing of stuff is still novel for many people. Hopefully, people will wake up and realise that they're being sucked-in to buying crap they don't need, with money they don't have, and that they'd have a much more fulfilling life if they had less stuff - or at least didn't care quite so much about it.
I'm not holding my breath though...
For most people, this is relatively mild - by overusing one and only one solution, a person can lose touch with the reality that other solutions exist. This creates a psychologically-maintained monopoly which is not subject to market forces or anything else. A certain Redmond-based corporation is often connected with this issue, but it's really only one of many companies that have an unhealthy mindshare, and any company that makes use of advertising is - in some way - exploiting this particular human sickness.
Note, however, that the problem is one of psychology and NOT one of technology. The technology merely happens to be the instrument used in some cases. It gets more press because tech companies are rather more prominent than breakfast cereal manufacturers, but the problem is universal. Kellogs didn't change their marketing strategy out of kindness, and the UK egg board didn't pull plans to reuse 1950s adverts for reasons of cost. Tech is easy to blame, but in this type of case it is not the subject that is the issue at all.
In a few, very few, cases there is a much more serious problem. These people have an actual biochemical or neurological disorder that creates disproportionate and dysfunctional cravings. As before, these attach to something external for a whole host of reasons, but what they attach to is generally unimportant. If something is addictive, it worsens that disorder, but it is still the disorder that is the issue and not the subject. Tech is not addictive, so although it can be the target of such cravings, it is merely the innocent victim. If it wasn't tech, it would be something else. Those with such disorders are guaranteed to latch onto something.
So, am I saying that tech isn't a problem? Yes and no. It is NOT a problem in the way that is talked about in the article or the summary. It is a problem in that there is so little innovation and true invention that we get into solution monocultures. This is a danger, if something goes wrong (see: Day of the Triffids for details, or indeed any of the mass power or phone blackouts that have occurred over the years). I would much prefer people to be aware of multiple ways to get the same result, because that is far more resilient to the inevitable problems in life. It is also a problem in the special case where the throw-away mentality produces steadily inferior products (see: Hitchhiker's Guide, shoe event horizon).
In neither of these cases, though, is tech the real culprit. It merely enables society to make very bad decisions, but ultimately society itself is at fault for making the decisions, the tech didn't force them to do so.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I've never had a cell phone, and never will. Where's my million pounds?
:)
You've got a good job (or no job?).
If I had a million pounds I wouldn't need a cell phone. One catch - I get to rid myself of the Treo by smashing it on the concrete the next time it resets while I'm doing a web search.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think part of the reason is that advertising has become so pervasive, and so effective. Many people think that they need these things to be happy, and it's a view that is constantly reinforced on TV.
You mean the problem is people don't know how to think for themselves?
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that we have become (well, the middle class, anyway) much wealthier in the last 10 - 15 years... buying crap they don't need, with money they don't have
Wait, you lost me - are we gaining wealth or debt? Those are opposites.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If you reply to a first post, the moderators are more likely to see it as they are lazy and don't bother scrolling down more than a page or two. The moderators are either too stupid to notice that the reply has NOTHING to do with the parent, or they don't care, which is just as bad. Such is the way of Slashdot.
Of course, a million pounds is really heavy, and a mobile phone is really light, who wants to carry around 500 tons? And a million pounds of what?
I'd pay you to take my mobile phone away. Old-school nerds like their gadgets, but hate talking.
Homer: Ohhhhh, 20 dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: 20 dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer: Woohoo!
s/Peanut/Cell Phone/g
s/20 dollars/1 million/pounds/g
It becomes an addiction when you make up a creepy name for it. You know, like "Technolust".
We'll find out June 29.
No, that's when we'll find out if people will give up a million pounds for a mobile phone.
I know someone who makes less than $30K a year yet saw fit to buy a $4K bed. We don't say people have an "expensive furniture addiction." I've met non-rich guys whose car rims cost $1.5K each. Why is this any different than with plasma screens or cellphones? We all buy what we want, and beyond food/shelter/clothing/medicine, almost all of it is luxury.
I would give it up - in the mean time I would just get a tight little portable internet device and wait it out till mobile phones move on in the tech world like pagers did-
either that or pay someone a half a million pounds to kill the guy watching me to make sure I don't get a cell phone
... you blog about it for no pay from a machine that cost you what might have been the final nail in your down payment on a new house.
I don't think the problem is people buying lots of gadgets, the problem is the story never ends. Gadgets will always deprecate in value fairly quickly (dvd players worth 50 euros now have the same fucntionality that dvdplayers worth 500 euros had a few years ago) and one also needs to get a replacement every x years (computer/laptop/ipod). Also because of technological progress, a gadget can bacome obsolete fairly quickly (palm/newton) for those wanting the latest features.
While I myself love gadgets too and always have the newest computers/phone/ipod/laptop etc me & my fellow geeks have to accept the cold hard truth: it is money thrown down the drain.
I don't have a TV and don't want one, nor a car, motorbike or high end computer, but I would not give up my cell phone or net connection for anything. I was past thirty when I got them, so I know what life is like without them: It is lonely and disconnected. Until I happened to feed the words "Helsinki underground music" into a search engine some years ago, I didn't know that I had a lively scene of peers in my home town. They sure as heck never showed up on television, radio or any news stand publication, being too far beyond the mainstream and too few to interest advertisers. But they have mailing lists, web sites, record labels and net connections to similar artists all over the world. That's what the net means to me.
And the cell phone means that I can take a walk in the city when I don't have work and not miss a job offer from my customers. God, how I hated sitting next to that landline phone, waiting for work!
So I'm not addicted to technology, but the people it brings me. You simply cannot compare a cell phone to a flat screen TV - the latter is a dead one way channel.
Rene Kita
Artist, noise musician, freelance translator
Hear hear! Teenagers in Britain realize that a mobile phone considerably improves their social life. For some very odd reason, they would rather keep it than take a lump of cash.
30% of people would not give up running water for a million pounds! 17% would not give up electric lights!
Stupid "money is everything" attitude.. *grumble*
One-third of 16 to 24 year olds in the UK are stupid.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
To see what Visual Voicemail is, surf here then click on Voicemail.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)