Slashdot Mirror
Can An Individual Still Resist The Spread of Technology? (chicagotribune.com)
schwit1 shares a column from the Chicago Tribune:
When cellphones first appeared, they gave people one more means of communication, which they could accept or reject. But before long, most of us began to feel naked and panicky anytime we left home without one. To do without a cellphone -- and soon, if not already, a smartphone -- means estranging oneself from normal society. We went from "you can have a portable communication device" to "you must have a portable communication device" practically overnight... Today most people are expected to be instantly reachable at all times. These devices have gone from servants to masters...
Few of us would be willing to give up modern shelter, food, clothing, medicine, entertainment or transportation. Most of us would say the trade-offs are more than worth it. But they happen whether they are worth it or not, and the individual has little power to resist. Technological innovation is a one-way street. Once you enter it, you are obligated to proceed, even if it leads someplace you would not have chosen to go.
The column argues "the iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right," citing this passage from the 1996 manifesto of the anti-technology terrorist. "Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it."
Few of us would be willing to give up modern shelter, food, clothing, medicine, entertainment or transportation. Most of us would say the trade-offs are more than worth it. But they happen whether they are worth it or not, and the individual has little power to resist. Technological innovation is a one-way street. Once you enter it, you are obligated to proceed, even if it leads someplace you would not have chosen to go.
The column argues "the iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right," citing this passage from the 1996 manifesto of the anti-technology terrorist. "Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it."
Remember when there used to be payphones all over the place, so if you had an emergency or ran out of gas or something, you could call for help? Good luck finding one of those now. And when cab companies are put out of business by Uber, good luck getting transportation anywhere without a cellphone. It won't be long before you won't be able to pay bills by mailing a check and some countries have already gone cashless, and my prediction is that in less than 20 years if not sooner, America will be cashless as well, and smartphone apps will have completely replaced debit and credit cards. Up to now, I've resisted getting a smartphone, but it's getting harder and harder all the time. Meeting friends at a restaurant is getting to be a problem. It used to be you'd decide in advance where and when you'd meet. Nowadays, they expect you to be reachable all the time, so they can make their decision at the very last minute. It's really hard to have a social life today without a smartphone.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
excuse my ignorance. But what the fuck does the IPhone X have that proves the Unabomber right? if anything it is one of those very minor upgrades that proves you don't need it this time around.
It is certainly easier to do a lot of things with modern technology, sure, but it isn't the only way. The poster, the source piece, and the unibomber are all operating under the faulty premise that there is only one solution to a problem. That is complete nonsense. Human beings are not that one-dimensional, and they tend to be pretty good at improvising when the need arises, for the most part. This is a projection of their own myopia and ignorance (as in, this is me, therefore it is logically everyone) in my opinion. Sorry, that's patently false.
The Taxi companies deserve to die. Horrible response. Drivers that pretend to not understand English so they can lengthen your route. No accountability for bad drivers. High prices, low availability.
Fuck them.
If I have an emergency or run out of gas, the cell phone is far more convenient. Why would I stand on a dark corner talking on a payphone, all ripe for armed robbery?
The Unabomber was a fucking psychotic luddite. Live without the benefits of technology if you choose. Just don't bitch when everyone else doesn't stay in the 1990s with you.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Why resist? Nothing makes you answer the phone. Nothing makes you read your email or messages.
But at the same time you have camera and internet and other tools at your disposal at all times.
As for mailing a cheque most countries other than the US have pretty much abandonned those anyway.
1) You personally not using technology is NOT resisting the spread of it. It still spreads. You can't resist the spread of technology. Even if you don't use it other people will, and this spreads it.
2) You can use the technology while refusing the stupid abuses. For example, despite the moronic statement, in the article you can have a phone and not answer it. I would even go so far as to call people that insist on answering it fools. All cell phones have answering machines and if it is important, they text. I would even go so far as to say that slowly, over time, people that are stupid enough to answer the phone at the wrong time will get themselves killed (car accidents for example).
3) The problem is not even the spread of technology, nor the social change that it brings. Certain technology makes certain abuses less likely and certain abuses more likely. The spread of machinery helped eliminate slavery (by reducing the need for low skilled work). The spread of the internet made cyber-bullying far more common. But this changes. Over time, new technology replaces the old ones and often solves the old problems (while creating new ones.) In other words, having new tech DOES solve the problems of old tech. If you resist it long enough, it goes away. Or better yet, YOU can solve the problem.
For example, perhaps someone will find a way to make cellphones with real secrecy. Maybe it will be TOR based, who knows. But it is totally possible if enough people demand it.
Stop crying about the problem and solve it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I think that the question is being answered in the wrong way. The technology itself isn't bad, its resisting the bad uses.
I and my Spouse have Android Phones. They Communicate to our Home Domain Controllers. Our Home Domain Controllers run an Application called Spectrum 2. The Spectrum 2 Server operates behind a NAT firewall, and uses an internal Account Database of registered Social Media Accounts (exccluding Facebook for security, stalking, and abuse/harrassment reasons). The Mobile devices use Spectrum 2 to translate the various proprietary libpurple compliant messages into XMPP.
The Mobile Android devices running LineageOS on the Phones see all contacts and can communicate transparently with said media services. It stays encrypted via XMPP and the Domain Controller translates it into AIM, Yahoo, Skype, Discord, so on and so fourth.
On an unfamiliar Wifi Network? We have IPSec for that.
More people need to apply this approach.
With respect to the Unabomber, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.
Let's expose HBI for who he really is. Here's his Slashdot bio:
Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task. That means you, with the mod points. Social Justice is the freedom to be a degenerate without being told you are a degenerate. The SJW tolerance religion is all about protecting actual white racism in lily-white Blue enclaves.
This says plenty about the type of person he is.
I'm not defending the parent or luddite-ism, but surely you must realise that what you are talking about is a serious edge case? Most people do not have any professional need to be on call (even when they are at work, never mind at home).
Way back in the old days if someone went on holiday they were gone for two weeks. If some issue came up, it just had to wait until they were back because there was simply no option. Nowadays some colleague will be sending a text within 5 minutes ("we can't find the staples", "do you remember where I put the documents for client x", "how do you change the sugar in the Mr Coffee machine"). That does not seem like a net gain to me.
I do not have a Facebook account, Twitter account, Instagram account.
I don't see a need or use for them. And I am a contract computer programmer. i also write XCode/Swift apple stuff.
I create technology, but do not use much of it.
Tech is only important if you make it so!
You can use technology without letting it control you. Exercise moderation, don't get sucked into BS social media timewasters, don't join the race to have the newest, fanciest toy. A 2 year old phone is still perfectly capable of doing all the things you need it to do, such as calls, messaging, basic navigation, using a taxi app and so on.
Eat the rich.
It's the same in America but like a people everywhere there are those who want to turn a singular negative experience with themselves nailed to a cross.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There are broadly speaking three stages of values -- premodern, modern, and post-post-modern.
Premodern is the old empires, kings, absolute authority, most large religions, etc. It sounds archaic but it forcefully united what would otherwise be lots of fiefdoms and warlords. And the authoritarian way, was the way the world was run for several thousand years.
The modernity appeared, due a a whole bunch of circumstances, and power was distributed, and what I guess makes a true modern nation state is the quality and honesty of its institutions.
Now your terrorist type has basically a preference for warlordism, whether because they don't like the government, or the government is too corrupt, but where a lot of people would be like, whatever, let's just get on with life, the "direct action" type wants to fight someone. And if the world ever collapsed back to pre-modern in a Mad Max kinda way, these people are actually the ones who would, for better or worse, be forcefully trying to reestablish power structures.
And I think you are right, the problem is not technology itself -- the problems, when they appear, are in the social power structures.
Are the nation's institutions relatively free of corruption? The global corruption index is probably way more important than whether a nation has this or that other development metric.
Technology itself is just extending our biology. We all depend on having bodies, food, water, and shelter. We all need our mitochondria. We all depend on the food system. We all depend on lots of stuff (and which many take for granted). I mean, there was the guy who tried to make his own toaster from scratch and it took him a year and it barely worked once. We all depend on information.
And yeah, tech can be used for "evil" ie. for destroying the social systems built so far, either by corrupting it from the top, or, as people often forget, by corrupting it from the bottom, with "people action" and other things which can be like a cancer. And let's not get started on post-modern nihilism.
But fortunately, whilst tech brings both good and bad, it tends to bring in a slight net good.
The internet can be used by corps and governments to spy on people and oppress dissent, as well as allowing all the terror nutters to find each other, but it also seems to be spreading good developments faster, like women's rights in developing countries, and new ideas for food production.
But I also assume the future cannot be predicted, so I do hope the good possibilities will continue to outweigh the bad, but again, the spread of ideas may bring all sorts of unexpected developments.
You can get a smartphone without necessarily getting sucked into wasting your time or money on frivolous nonsense. A smartphone is a powerful tool when used properly. You don't have to join the gadget race, just because you buy a smartphone, you don't even have to install any apps or use it for anything but the bare essentials (ie. stuff you can't do without a phone, or which are extremely cumbersome without a phone).
Being able to look up basic information from a handheld device is extremely handy, for instance to check on the status on your flight, or look up the address of that restaurant you remember, but can't quite place on a map.
Eat the rich.
I nremeber that and also the fact that you needed change and the number and that they almost never worked and that you could aks people for help.
Why would they go out of business? I am sure that at busy places there will still be some sort of taxi-service. e.g. on airports. Supply and demand. Also: Uber and Lyft ARE taxi-services.
And nothing of value was lost. I live in a country where they do not exist anymore. So how does this work?
1) You can do it via PC, tablet or app on your smartphone
2) You do it via phone line Cumbersome, but not impossible.
3) You give a standard paper to the bank who will then do the transfer. This is almost like a checque, but you give it to the bank directly and not to the other person. As all banking is standard, I can do payments all over Europe, both to individuals and to companies.
Most companies will attach such a paper when they send you a bill, although they prefer automatic payment and often will give you a reduction if you do it that way.
Many people use this method
3) You go to the bank and use the PC there. They are open 24/7
4) You go to the teller and handle stuff there.
I email my friends. I have a wonderful social life and most of it has nothing to do with a smartphone. We SMS, if at all. Or we call, like, on a phone. But I understand that peer-pressure is a real thing and not everybody is able to resist it.
One friend of mine was told that he either turned off his phone when we where out, or not come along.
To me not having a smart phone would be pretty easy. So why do I have one? When my parents where still alive, they lived in another country and it was cheaper to call them using a VoiP app. They are both dead now, but I still have it. Otherwise? No real reason. Yes I do have my bank app, but could eqasily do that from home. I have WatsApp with 5 people on it. I have contact with 1 and that could be done over Email and SMS. My phone is off when I work and when I go out.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The problem is you cant buy a smartphone that respects the user and offers built-in, seamless, fully factory supported rooting.
Good-bye
Why would I stand on a dark corner talking on a payphone, all ripe for armed robbery?
Oh sheesh, you are kinda what we are warned against. Once upon a time, I would take off for an entire day without anyone knowing where I was. Now my wife and others expect to contact me immediately whenever and wherever I am. They freak if they cannot. And people shit themselves when that last signal strength bar goes away. This is the problem - addiction to the little things.
I like my smartphones. They are technology that is simply amazing. I use many of their features. But I can and do turn mine off when I don't feel like being bothered. I do any and all social media on a desktop, and walk around the world. But I'm not addicted to the smartphone like many people are. I think this is the point, and the unabomber positive cite simply alienates the people who could use the most help with their addiction.
The Unabomber was a fucking psychotic luddite. Live without the benefits of technology if you choose. Just don't bitch when everyone else doesn't stay in the 1990s with you.
Well, it is not a digital situation. There are times when the latest technology is just tremendous. There are other times that spending one's time on social media while at the Grand Canyon indicates that there is a problem.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Actually....yes!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........