Slashdot Mirror
Will the High-Tech Cities of the Future Be Utterly Lonely? (theweek.com)
adeelarshad82 writes from a report via The Week: The prospect of cities becoming sentient is "fast becoming the new reality," according to one paper. Take Tel Aviv for example, where everyone over the age of 13 can receive personalized data, such as traffic information, and can access free municipal Wi-Fi in 80 public zones. But in a future where robots sound and objects look increasingly sentient, we might be less inclined to seek out behaviors to abate our loneliness. Indeed, one recent study titled "Products as pals" finds that exposure to or interaction with anthropomorphic products -- which have characteristics of being alive -- partially satisfy our social needs, which means the human-like robots of tomorrow could kill our dwindling urge to be around other humans.
will make it more crowded. lonely is a choice. " i identify as lonely "
They have their own worldview that doesn't have you at the center. They have their own competing needs and desires.
Give me a sufficiently complex AI that can be set to be as subservient as I like and I'd absolutely choose a factory build over Nature's own. And I can guarantee you I'm not alone in that.
AI (if we ever figure it out) is a serious danger to the continuation of our species, and not because it'll result in robots rising up against us. It will simply take our jobs and be our friend while we lay about not breeding new generations of ourselves.
At least in the USA the average person is shallow, self-centered and incredibly effectively stupid (they're not stupid in the usual sense, they just refuse to think - they treat thinking as a terrible burden to avoid whenever possible, not the beautiful privilege it really is). The trend among the Baby Boomers is to be helpless so they can demand unnecessary "help" from others. The trend among the Millenials is nearly complete apathy. The tendency of Americans in general is to have little or no patience and to regard any sort of courtesy, kindness, and respect as subservient acts of showing weakness. Exceptions are very rare.
In a different world I may have been a "people person". If the mainstream culture tended toward a more loving, compassionate, intelligent, enlightened, introspective, self-aware mentality, I likely would be. The reality is, I find myself in a culture where being self-centered is confused with being individualistic, and petty gratification is the major goal of people who appear completely stressed out and high strung just living their daily lives (of course they're stressed out - they're socializing the hard way).
I can't control these people. Even if I could, it would be wrong to try. They're not likely to ask me for advice on how to live, and I'm not sure I should answer a question like that even if they did. So I have a modest but beautiful home with a family of people who really love each other, don't manipulate one another, and aren't concerned about how to dominate others. I also have a relatively small group of cherished, beloved friends who are just like family members. I try my level best to avoid average people, and that's very hard. The ones who are not-so-average stand out (unless they're cowards) and are easy to identify, and those are a pleasure to speak to and be around. But really, I have no place in my life for most people - I wouldn't like them and they probably wouldn't like me.
Just as our system of law tries to carry out the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority, that principle can be more generalized to things outside of law. The opportunity to not be lonely is good and the majority of people probably want that. Yet the right of the minority who aren't starved for attention and don't enjoy shallow interaction with really transparent people is every bit as valid. TL;DR this sounds to me like a non-issue - most social interactions are neither edifying nor satisfying in any way, and I am much more concerned with the ability to *not* associate with people when I (or anyone else) don't want to.
I'm in a suburb of San Diego. I have parks, recreation, low traffic (unless I want to get the Sorrento Valley from 7-9 or 4-6). I walk outside my door I have grass, landscaping, little traffic. I can ride my bike pretty much anywhere within my lung capacity.
I could move to downtown SD and walk to bars, restaurants, the harbor. Why would I want to? I outgrew bars 30 years ago. I can walk in parks here, drive to cheaper restaurants, and the harbor? Phfft. Kevin Faulconer seems hell bent on destroying Seaport Village, and they've already fucked up Anthony's beyond all repair.
You can take your anti US bigotry and shove it up your marxist, hypocritical ass.
Same AC here. Yours is the type of response I anticipated - it's unfortunately rare that people surprise me, though my view of average people means that any surprise I do experience is likely to be a pleasant one.
You don't seem to appreciate the difference between "screw those assholes, they're underperforming just as one would expect!" versus "they have all the ingredients needed to reach great heights and accomplish wonderful things, such a shame so much of their energy is wasted on frivolous things which are beneath them". My sentiment is more like the latter, though of course like all summaries, it doesn't fully explain it.
It's odd to me, the inconsistency. A gay person trying to cope with a majority-straight world would receive tremendous sympathy and encouragement. A black person trying to cope with a majority-white world would be honored and esteemed. An individual who values loving, compassionate, real interaction trying to cope with a majority of phoney, empty, perfunctory, shallow and hollow "social interaction", now that person is treated with the customary hostility directed at all "heretics". Yet you don't see the contradiction there, do you? I cannot change my heart-felt desire for real, edifying, satisfying human interaction, no more than a black person could change their skin color, no more than a gay person could change to whom they are attracted.
No matter - the neurosis is yours to deal with. Small, insecure, hostile minds like yours are exactly what I was talking about. In day-to-day meatspace, that's what I want to be left alone by. As I said, I wouldn't like most people and most people (you being a nice defensive example) wouldn't like me. I mean, look at this thread - out of everything I wrote, all you can see is "us against them" - as though the emotional reaction goes, "he DARED to point out that mainstream culture has gone astray? That fucker! How DARE he not like everything we are! We've been ATTACKED by this TERRIBLE INSULT and must now RETALIATE!" What a shame. I can't have intellectual discourse with you.
Not the same AC as any of the previous posts, and not from the US, but still find it odd how you attribute near universal issues specifically to the US...
narrow minds generally cannot be reasoned with, they just get upset and more hostile when you try
And this is why you get short, insult laden replies. People see someone who is hypocritically complaining about others being unware and self-centered while dumping a bunch of belittling off-topic rants, and think the exact same, "This person can't be reasoned with." Your replies pretty much validate that, and double down on the hypocrisy by doing nearly all of the stuff you complain of others doing. Of course you shouldn't be surprised that pseudo-intellectual attention seeking gathers unintelligent attention.
Turns out research shows that a non-trivial amount of happiness in your life is related to your commute. Long commutes, particularly by car, lead to less happiness.