The Coming Cyberclysm - Part One 251
There are hordes of serious-minded people who insist that computing is driving us towards a Cyberclysm, when humanity becomes overwhelmed as it tries and fails to cope with the number, complexity, speed and nature of the things we make.
Even now, nobody can really keep up, and only a few can even fake it. Everyone is frantic, stressed, tethered, broke or worn out trying to manage. We are bombarded by inventions and advances we might not need or understand, that move more quickly and do more things than we want, that we can barely grasp, let alone service or repair.
The complaints and alarms are piling up.
Author James Gleick in "Faster" complains that technology is forcing everything to move too quickly. In his new collection of essays, Arthur C. Clarke writes "I have seen the future and it doesn't work."
The typical twenty-first-century person's day, he predicts, will include: "Skimming five hundred channel program listings, two hours; viewing television programs selected, four hours; catching up on recorded programs, six hours; exploring the hyperweb, six hours; and adventuring in artificial reality, four hours." He didn't even mention checking e-mail, answering fax-spewing and stock-listing cellphones, or responding to pagers and beepers.
Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale goes further, warning in his books that technology is destroying the world. He wants us to smash our computers to save the planet.
In his apocalyptic new dirge "Staring Into Chaos," author Bruce Brander proclaims that western civilization itself is coming to an end.
The term Ubiquitous Computing is technological historian Langdon Winner's, who in Netfuture Issue No. 94 [http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/1999/Sep1499_94.html#33], warns that society is drowning in a wave of absurd and unnecessary appliances and electronics, continuously and wastefully cranked out by some of the best minds alive.
Winner, a critic of the Wired-era hype about the Internet and networked computing, exults in what he perceives as a growing realization that Ubiquitous Computing isn't making life simpler or better, but harder, more expensive and chaotic:
"Simplify. Save time. Reduce effort. Liberate yourself from toil. This has been the continuing siren song of consumer technology through the twentieth century. Unfortunately, in its own terms, the dream is always self-defeating. As people add more and more time-saving, labor-saving equipment to their homes, their lives do not become simpler and easier. Instead their days become even more complicated, demanding and rushed."
A disclaimer here : I don't share Winner's summary view of computing. For me, appliances, hardware and software are the least interesting aspects of technology. For me, the siren song would be: Speak and Think Freely. Connect. Learn, and Share What You Learn. Then learn and share more. Grow. For me, this promise has been fulfilled, a thousand times over.
But Winner, one of the sharpest thinkers about technology in American society, does have a point. We are making a lot more things than we demonstrably need. We give far more thought to making and marketing them than we do to whether they are truly useful. TV's and sound systems, watches that monitor global time zones, multi-function phones - keep adding features daily, many of them of doubtful necessity to most of the people who buy them. One ad blanketing commercial TV touts new wireless phone technology that will allow people to get their e-mail, weather and sports scores instantly from anywhere. Does anybody really need to be that wired?
Even the most ardent geeks complain that they can never be out of touch, never have time to think, never completely catch up. As the world is able to reach us more easily, it expects us to be always available and more or less instantly responsive. This rushes us and our responses. It makes us edgy, grumpy, impulsive. Technology becomes a means of harassing and pressuring us instead of improving our lives. The genuine blessings of technology - information, opportunity, community, the portability of work - get overlooked in all the gadgetry.
All labor-saving devices don't necessarily improve the quality of life. Autonomous human beings can - and maybe should - take responsibility for the smaller details of life. After all, these labor saving devices require considerable labor: they need installation, adjustment, repairs and replacement - often at considerable time, cost and annoyance. There are enormous ecological consequences as well, to making so much plastic and metal, so many wires and chips.
Newsweek enthused last week, in a gee-whiz cover story about how the Internet is changing our lives, that tomorrow's automatic coffee maker will have access to our online schedule so it can automatically withhold the brew if we're out of town. This is by -now - instantly-recognizable media language of Technohype, computing and technology wrongly presented as a barrage of gizmos with chips that do things we can just as (or more) easily do for ourselves.
But if the laws governing technology are unpredictable, those governing capitalism are unwavering: What is made must be sold and, therefore, hyped.
Such overheated predictions don't evoke the future so much as the past. Remember Walt Disney's Tomorrowland with its notions of intergalactic travel, hover cars, people movers and other things that still don't exist? We may be closer to genetically engineering perfect humans, or even curing cancer, but we still can't cure the cold or come up with a practical battery-powered car, or make computers that don't drive the people using them nuts.
Alas -- according to almost every business or marketing projection, R&D labs will usher in the Millenium by making the creation and sales of info-gadgets and appliances an even greater preoccupation of the next century.
On the East Coast (where I live), in the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd, one little-noticed consequence of the storm was that power interruption rendered cordless telephones useless even if the phone lines were functioning. Moreover, the flooding of an AT&T installation in New Jersey knocked out hundreds of thousands of cellphones. For a few days, the only phones that worked were the Lo-tech sort, the non-electronic, non-digital kind that plugged into the wall jack, receivers attached to the base with curly cords. That's as apt a metaphor for the coming Cyberclysm as any. Perhaps the survivors will be the people with the simplest, not the most sophisticated, machines.
Whose responsibility is all this? Nobody's, of course. Technology has a mind, life and direction all of its own. It's inherently uncontrollable, even if anybody was up to trying.
But some of the fault lies in the way our institutions - education, politics, media - deal with technology. We're trapped between two useless states - alarm and euphoria. Either we are railing about pornography, disconnection, and addiction or we are banging the drums for Gee-Whiz Computing that exists much more for its own sake than for our benefit. Like cell phones that receive faxes in taxicabs or 21st century toilets that will monitor the family's health through chemical sampling of fecal matter, or mirrors over bathroom sinks that flash the day's headlines, so nobody in the family has to wait until they get downstairs to get the news, if their wireless phone hasn't already alerted them.
Perhaps the idea that there are people who keep up with all this stuff is in itself a technological myth.
Clarke warns that we're headed for a Cyberclysm (he and others have used the word), a catastrophic collision between computers, technology and humanity. We won't be consumed by evil aliens or runaway AI machines, as sci-fi futurists have long predicted. Instead, we'll conquer ourselves with too much information about too many things and too many appliances performing too many services.
Clarke has written often of the pitfalls of the Dream Machine, the seductive idea that gadgets will run the world and monitor the most intimate details of our lives while we are free to enjoy ourselves.
"There have been many science fiction stories," writes Clarke, "about frantic human attempts to unplug disobedient computers. The real future might involve exactly the opposite scenario. The computers may unplug us." And, he adds: "it would serve us right."
That leaves most of us holding the bag, confronted with two noxious choices: to fall back with the hare-brained Luddites who want to return to the sylvan forests, or to follow the Techno-Utopians on their runaway CyberBinge.
End Part One.
Tomorrow: Turning to AI computing and the Gods for salvation and survival - Clotho.org.
not saving time? (Score:1)
Has ascii changed? (real ? this time) (Score:1)
Have a little faith in people, already (Score:2)
Look at the mess we made of the early industrial age, with heavily polluted cities and children working in factories and mines. We figured out what was wrong and fixed it, and we'll do it again.
Sure, we'll make some mistakes, including some really big, nasty ones, and a lot of little silly ones. But we'll learn and we'll adjust.
Um, this sounds more like addiction: (Score:2)
This sounds more alarmist than anything else, in my opinion. There are people that do this kind of thing today -- browse the web for hours on end, watch way too much television, IRC and MU* all damn day. These kind of people generally don't amount to much, though. They certainly aren't -- and, I think, won't become -- "typical". I don't envision a world filled with unwashed, television-and-computer-addicted losers, at least not any more so than it's been for the past forty years.
Heck, the typical people of the 21st century would be the ones working 8 hours a day, just as they do now, so the addicts they come home to can sit in front of their TVs and computers. Addicts generally don't have jobs (how could they, if they spend, apparently, 22 hours watching TV and browsing "the hyperweb"?). Typical people of the 21st century will be the same as they are now, only older.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Great minds? (Score:1)
John's Missing the point (Score:1)
People settings themselves up to decide what is good for the rest of us.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I get VERY concerned when a do-gooder / neo-luddite / congress-critter wants to decide what technology is "good" - what I can use (or even invent).
Exactly (Score:1)
I can go out and do more things in life because I only let the technology do for me what I want it to do. As long as people feel this need to always be connected to the phone, the web, or email they will be tied to the phone, the web and email. If you realize that just because you have a cell phone that does not mean that everybody and their monkey should be able to get a hold of you at any time of the day or night, you will be much better off. Having technology should not mean that you must use it, it should mean that you have the choice whether to use it or not.
Jon... (Score:2)
It might be too much to ask but could you at least _credit_ your recycled ideas properly? Toffler is not a guru and does not have a claim to ultimate truth, but he put a lot of work into his concept. Right or wrong it deserves better than to be pre-schoolised and stripped of its context by you.
Re:Cordless telephones. (Score:2)
Uh, no. If the cell site loses land power (and their backup fails), the cell site is off the air. And, cellphones are more subject to congestion issues than landline phones are.
Cellphones are no magic bullet.
...phil
Re:I am a Unix admin who doesn't have a computer@h (Score:1)
On a separate note I do belive that we need the current break neck speed of technology just to keep feeding everyone, with the advance of medcine the population is growing larger and larger but the planet isn't getting any bigger.
>>>
We need to have people running around with pagers/celphones on call 24/7 to keep people from starving? It seems to me that whatever (doubtful) social benefits are afforded by middle-class business and leisure-oriented high technology, virtually none of it goes to the poor underclass.
As for the general problems of overpopulation and resource scarcity, I think we've rightfully stopped looking for a technological solution long ago. Technology alone isn't going to solve them.
Re:Once Again, Lizard beats Katz (Score:1)
As to the conclusion that voluntary simplicity is parasitic, my response is "Great!" I prefer to think of it as low-level economic/social guerilla warfare. It's the poor (or wannabe-poor) are exploiting the (relatively) rich.
As a mild VS'er (no car, no credit card, mostly vegetarian), I pride myself on the belief that if half the people in the U.S. lived the way I do, the entire economy would collapse.
Re:My own thoughts... (Score:1)
Let me know if you find one... I think I'll join them.
In any case, the question here is whether or not people will go to extremes to get wired up. Aside from the rich or the sick (spending $500 on that palmpilot when there's a huge hole in the roof... sounds sick in the head to me.
In this man's case, All I have is a old desktop computer (P166), your normal wall-jack telephones, cable TV, A watch (w/a phonebook) and a scitentific calculator (so, I'm not extremely proficient in normal math... I still get by... with a little help)
Each thing (except the computer) is a tool used only when necessary. This is probably the same for a large number of people in general.
--
Surviving in a faster world... (Score:2)
So the secret seems to be NOT to communicate and to participiate in the global chatter, unless you are forced to.
MS-Demoroniser (Score:1)
Poor design and the noble savage (Score:1)
It's our old pal, the noble savage rearing his head again. Oh how better things were back in the good old days. Right?
Well I was there and the good old days sucked. This is all academic; there's no going back anyway.
There are indeed lots of people who never knew how everyday stuff got done before computers. You can tell them from their parents by looking at who is still able to function when the network is hosed.
If anything, we've become overly dependent on poorly designed systems. If there's to be a "cyberclism", that will be the cause. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:The Technological Singularity (Score:1)
The AI's (Policy) already control us. (Score:1)
The problem is getting the solution to work in the minds of most people. Unfortunately in most companies, hospitals, governments, and the like, common sense and logical thought is more than often defeated by policy and everything a person ever needs to do in any given situation on a card.
So what better solution than to have computers carry out the policy for us? When a terminal in a hospital gives the nurse instructions from a database to pull the plug on a patient, without input from the family, the patient, or the _human_ doctors, based simply on a form of questions with yes or no answers, that is the day that we must go to war.
A war against those who consider their policies better than any one mans logic or experience, or the end all solution to any and all situation.
A war against apathy and complacency, and the lack of the will to fight against the AI's that already control our schools, governments, courtrooms, and companies.
The AI's that sacrifice our employees to 'downsize' and increase profits by not having to pay as many people.
The AI's that control the schools and have pre-set policies and actions for any given situation to prevent violence and destroy individuality and defeat the logic of individual situations.
The AI's that run the government that we call corruption yet do nothing about; a testament to the fact that the AI's are winning.
AI is here, and it's not in a computer like the literary prophecies we all know, it's a policy made by people that doom themselves to carry out the policy as agents of it, told by their minds that their logic is irrelevant, and that they can only do what the AI, the laws or policies, let them.
We are doomed.
Doomed to a war with these AI's, or Doomed to complacency and apaty for our pitiful situation.
Perhaps we are doomed to a legislature that programs in the endless complexity of the programming language of law, never escaping our own trap.
Of course, these AI's can also defend us, depending on their internal logic.
This friend I speak of, to you americans, is the first amendment, and the second we give this up is the day we lose the war.
How ironic that the very AI's that we must fight against also help us, at times.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I think I heard that in the 1800s.. (Score:4)
No one knows where we're going, and those afraid of change tend to embrace the past. This is the way of our species. There will always be the naysays who think we're moving to fast.
They may be right, but we should all hold on for the ride, becouse that's not going to stop what we call progress..
Re:Boondoggles (Score:1)
Evolutionary transition? (Score:1)
I wonder if we are not actually seeing some sort of evolutionary transition in progress?
Imagine when opposable thumbs first started to exist. There were probably individuals who complained about all those thumb motions and this new-fangled grabbing idea as being far too complicated (after all, hadn't they gotten along fine for millions of years without opposable thumbs?).
There were also probably those who insisted that the opposable thumb would revolutionize the EUI (Environment User-Interface) and eventually lead to such almost unimaginable things as the wheel and controllable fire.
The debate solved itself as those who insisted on remaining with the old-style thumb became extinct. I extrapolate that something similar will happen to the neo-Luddites.
This Isn't Limited to Computers... (Score:1)
And consider the law. In the U.S., it is common to hear that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse!" Despite the fact that our legislators really have nothing better to do with their time and have passed so many laws that no one fully understands or can even recite them all. I just found out that I have to pay $10 for a permit to install a garbage disposal in my house, for criminy's sake!
People seem to have a need to complexify everything they do. In the search for knowledge, this is sort of a natural state of affairs -- there's alot out there to know. But something interesting has happened over the years. Know-it-alls be damned, there has been an emergence of specialists who don't know everything about everything, but who rather have chosen to focus their attention on one particular subject, relying on others to handle the details of things they don't understand. Thus, the town surgeon no longer is any good at giving shaves and haircuts, he goes to a hairstylist for that!
Sure things keep getting more complex. But inevitably, there's some settling that occurs that makes things easier to handle as soon as that complexity starts to exceed human grasp. So much of the hype about the future of computing is vacuous and inane, but in it are ideas that will mature and genuinely help sort out the complexities. And where they can't, some other change will make things easier -- implants or gene therapy might make us smarter, for example. Life will go on -- pseudo-malthusian alarmism aside.
Oh, and will someone please fix Jon's apostropy catastrophies?
Re:There's a simply solution Jon. (Score:3)
Someone made the point that he thought the decision should be made by the individuals. I personally tend to agree. But Amish have made a commitment to a lifestyle lived deliberately -- they have agreed as adults to be held to the standards of their community, as defined by the elders of the church. I can't find fault with that -- people have the right to choose freely, and they have the right to forego that right. The only compulsion facing an Amish is that, if once they have joined the church, they defy it or refuse to live by its rules they will be shunned by church members. But they are in no way coerced to join the church. The have the opportunity to make an informed decision: most
Amish children spend a period of years (starting at 16) exploring the larger culture. They own cars, go to the movies, listen to rock and roll, smoke dope, and everything else. Something like 80%, having experienced everything the larger culture has to offer (and everything Amish culture has) join the church in the end.
By the way, something like 10% of all Amish are millionaires.
Most of this information is based on the Lancaster PA Amish. Other groups may differ.
There's a simply solution Jon. (Score:4)
Take an axe to the TV. Turn off the radio. Read a book. No, not a book on computers. A nice, eighteenth century book. Look up the big words if you have to. Stop driving anywhere that you can avoid -- you'd be amazed where you actually DON'T need to go. Walk everywhere you can. Use the computer at work and, at home, TURN THE DAMNED THING OFF!
I recently had the pleasure of studying the Amish (for an article in my church's in-house newspaper). I finished my study convinced that they had the right idea.
You see, the Amish don't think that technology is evil. They think that it has potential to corrupt their society. That technology, run wild, can reduce Amish society to rubble. So, they only allow technologies in on a case-by-case basis. Even when they allow a technology, they try to keep it as far away as possible.
So, they can have calculators, but not computers. They can have tractors, but no in the field or on the road. The can have generators, but not light bulbs or most appliances. (Ever lived a farm-sleep cycle? 12 hours of sleep in the winter! It's incredible. Now you know why most amish have 10 kids
That's not to say that they're right about everything. But I think that they do have a point about technology -- it's not necessarily harmless, not necessarily necessary, and should be used only after careful consideration.
Of course, that doesn't mean I practice what I preach. After all, palm-pilots are too nifty to pass up
Reality Check (Score:5)
While I respect your postings greatly, it is plainly clear that you have neglected to observe some of the great technological failures of the past few years.
Who can forget the siren call of Push, which would flood us with more graphics and data than we could possibly handle? Oh, right. Everybody. Once the novelty of Internet Animation wore off, the concept of computers dialing away in the middle of the night, retrieving late data that merely looked pretty looked about as lame as it really was.
Look back a little farther, why not, to the misshappen history of Netscape Plug-Ins. I remember browsing through an index of dozens--soon to become hundreds--of plugins, all sorts of new features(and complexities--uh oh!) that people would have to install to get The Latest Web.
In fact, if you look at the last few years, an entire calvacade of fads have been propped up by VC-desperate firms who, no doubt, all either hire the same PR firm or read the same trade rags. Portals! Plumbing! MULTIMEDIA! It's the next big thing!
For things that are truly useful, success awaits. Everything else gets washed away in the toilet that is Internet Time.
New technologies and infrastructures barely get their name embedded into people's minds before they're revealed as either truly useful(Slashdot, eBay, Linux, Google) or utter garbage(take your pick). It's this massive environment of collaborative filtering that the non-technical sociologists utterly fail to comprehend.
I dunno. Maybe it's a bit of Patent Office grade It's-Net-So-It's-New syndrome, but the concept that people are going to spend hours upon hours searching through their five hundred channel guide is patently ridiculous. Scaling the willingness to poke through a TV Guide for few minutes up to poking through an online channel guide for a few hours is the height of illogic. It reminds me of an old joke--in 1976, there were a few hundred Elvis Impersonators, but by the late 80's, there were tens of thousands of 'em. At that rate, by the year 2030, one out of every three humans will be an Elvis Impersonator.
People who channel surf already will continue to do so, but the real advantage will come to those who will finally be able to watch those shows they want to see--and not just whatever random BS is on. As the channel model is debunked by the sheer quantity of stations advertising content viewers might wish to see, the power moves from the network program directors to the writers, the actors, and the producers of the shows the customers actually want to watch.
If, by some cruel trick of nature, people only watching the shows they want to see is a harbringer of inefficiency and "cyberclysm", then NBC, CBS, and ABC have been poisoning the water supply for quite some time now.
I have a good deal of trouble accepting some of the presumptions I see made. The Sharper Image has existed for most of my life--I recently found a catalog of theirs, and revelled in the memories of drooling over their inventive products--yet, strangely, I don't see most people walking around with GPS capable cufflinks yet. Apocolyptic ravings about featuritis don't take away from the fact that while Geeks Like Me will always be interested in the abilities granted by high degrees of technification, most of the population will have better things to do.
And yet, it's only when something comes from the geek realm into modern, everyday life that the bells start ringing.
Much like the Pokemon Lawyers suing themselves, suddenly a major Geek Champion has been caught in fear of encroaching geekdom?
Please. Using a search engine instead of a card catalog does not a disaster of epic proportions create. There are those who have not yet learned the basics of computer usage, but User Interface developments will continue as they have been since the web finally exposed networked connectivity to a world not raised on control characters and LaTeX markup. Overall, those who want to connect will be able to, unless a hurricane hits. That much technology isn't designed as disaster-proof as Ma Bell's network could be construed as a bad thing, I suppose. I'll have to look into that.
In the meantime, those portending a disastrous future of chemically aware porcelain should do well to know--nobody wants a damn camera in their crapper, except the prisons the things were invented for.
Overall, I think you hit on the strongest point of them all in your column: Perhaps the survivors will be the people with the simplest, not the most sophisticated, machines.
It is not an accident that the most successful concepts in all of technology are those that remain both the simplest and the most sophisticated. Grace and form, it seems, are as critical in high technology as they are in most human work, be it architecture, sculpture, or even perhaps law.
If any of the futurists quoted can convince me that all of the world will forever embrace that which completely flaunts all tenets of grace and form; if they can prove the mass population will ignore the precedent of their flashing 12:00's and throw themselves at that which is almost designed to thwart the desires of its users, you'd have a case for a Cyberclysm. However, the continual successes of those technologies that Do It Right(and the continual cycle of destruction that everything else is wrung through) tell me That's Just Not Going To Happen.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
Uh?!?!? (Score:1)
I don't think we have too much information to use nor the time to utilize it. A problem does stem from the fact that more than half the information that is pushed out is media hype and has nothing to do with world around us. If you have to continually filter out the hype that is what becomes too time consuming. I often feel that I don't have enough information because I have to go thru a ton of hype! Most news reports on TV that I see aren't even what I consider news because the reporter didn't answer a question but created more with his/her opinion of the matter.
I also can't take this apolyptic view of the world - which man has plauged himself with because something new was in the wind. If all the machines went out I necessarily wouldn't cry because I think the outage would be short lived. We have an uncanny ability to survive and re-create. Usually, when man has to build something again he has the knowledge of his mistakes to correct them and does. Look at how safe vehicles on the road have become - unfortunately what makes them unsafe now is the driver no paying attention. Because there is too much information or because they couldn't be bothered with who else is on the road. I take the latter.
Will we fall in cyberclysm? Has amaggedon already started? or will it begin in the 21st century - which is still two years away.
I think the reality is that we won't know anything until it's already past. We will have power outages from time to time - which has always occured and everyone in the modern age has just dealt with it. We have had hurricanes that have knocked are technology to the ground and we have dealt with it. We have had too much information and we have dealt with it.
And these pointless predictions have been around for centuries and we have dealt with it because the majority couldn't be bothered and dealt with what the future truly has become - even though are ancestors have never seen it I'm sure they would say we live in a Utopia or a Hell?
Katz showing his age? (Score:1)
I don't feel weighed down by technology, nor do I feel that I can't "catch up" with the e-mail, pages, phone calls, faxes etc. I also don't have any friends (at least in the tech. industry) who feel that way either. We love out PalmPilots, our cell phones and all our gadgets, and unlike all these technophobic nay-sayers, I think that they save me lots of time. Maybe a PalmPilot complicates the life of a person whose understanding stops at pen & paper, but for someone who truly groks technology, it's a huge asset.
I think it would be an interesting poll to see who thinks technology is taking over our lives, and what the age breakdown of those responses would be. (Feel like doing it Rob?) I have a feeling that all the griping is coming from the 25+ camp.
Technology runneth amok...but only if we let it (Score:1)
As Benjamin Franklin said, "All things in moderation".
Re:Alarmists (Score:1)
You've never worked in tech support, have you...
Re:Alarmists (Score:1)
Re:Amish (Score:1)
Actually, my parents just bought a beautiful new oak table from some Amish furniture makers, who use CAD/CAM systems in their workshops.
Re:Once Again, Lizard beats Katz (Score:2)
Turn on water to let it get a little cold, open the can using the easy-open ripcord, plop it into a pitcher, fill the pitcher with cold water using the now-empty can and, if you don't have a pitcher you can close and shake to mix, give it a few swirls with a spoon. Two minutes, tops. Good god, man...
I might spend two hours making dinner by hand, but that's because it will often taste better/fresher than microwaved stuff (ever try to microwave cuts of meat? Bleh.) and I enjoy the activity. It's often almost meditative and gives me something to occupy my hands while I think over things. Of course, with your apparent dismal lack of basic cooking survival skills, I can see how it would just be torture!
I also think microwaves are the best thing since sliced bread. I'm all for nuking a quick dinner so I can waste more time in front of the computer.
The point is that it's our choice to work for technology or make technology work for us. I get so tired of hearing people whine about pagers and cell phones digging into their precious free time. Well, you know what? Try not answering them for a change! If you're out having a drink after work and work pages you, IGNORE IT. Turn the cell phone off! Let the answering machine get it, let the paging system catch up with you when you've got the time, don't answer email until you have time to address it. Stop trying to read 500 web sites each morning and keep up with 43 different mailing lists if you are drowning in information overload. Pare it down to essentials, and you'll probably find you aren't really missing anything much.
If you let technology dictate how you spend your day, instead of vice versa, you deserve everything you get. My PalmPilot and PageWriter and TalkAbouts and computer all serve *my* needs, and I have no problem leaving them all behind when I need to. Just like the microwave and the kitchen knives.
Alarmists (Score:2)
But the real truth is that people sometimes are at odds with the technology that runs things, but that's not because people are stupid or because there's too much technology. Quite the contrary - humans are absolutely brilliant creatures, and we can (most likely) saddle anything we build as long as we keep our wits about us.
Where I think the problem lies is when the advance of technology outstrips education among the general population. Technology is taking off like a rocket, but the base levels of education aren't really improving all that much in America, or as far as I know, elsewhere either. I don't like hearing people tell me that the U.S. has a great literacy rate and that we shouldn't complain because other people have it worse - that may be true but that's no reason to just think of everything as adequate and not work on anything anymore. Once the education improves both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, the technology that seems to be driving us to this new buzzword that's a mix of Cyber(insert-your-favorite-noun-here) and Cataclysm won't seem nearly as threatening or offensive to anybody. Understand it, and it's a tool. But like racism, or any other product of ignorance (ignorance NOT stupidity) if you don't understand it, it will cause fear and problems.
MDA
http://opop.nols.com/
A gadget driven society? (Score:1)
Sometimes I truly think some things are created solely for the reason to be created, and the consumers purchase them merely for the reason to have them.
Funny, considering I just bought a new watch after my old faithful analog was annihilated by a racquetball. World time, countdown timer, stopwatch, calculator (with constants and memory), 150 telephone numbers/schedules with indexing and search, 3-way alarm, touch screen interface.
I bought it mostly for the telememo and calculator feature. Sure, I could've went all out and gotten a Palm V, or heck, carry a mini rolodex, calculator, and pen in my pocket like I once used to.
So, why did I get the watch? I guess I can sit down easier without a pen jabbing me in the side, but aside from that, I really don't know. Maybe it's human nature, or just some morals and ideology that I've picked up over the years.
Scary thing, is I know I'm not the only geek that goes out and occasionally purchases one of these gadgets. Sometimes it just plain worries me . . .
Re:What I'm worried about (Score:1)
Never, EVER, use the prefix 'cyber' for ANYTHING.
Re:Choice (Score:1)
The same thing is happening with email; today you have a choice whether to use it or not; soon you need it the same way you need a postal address today.
If we don't want to be tethered to our cellphones, pagers et.al., this is the time to make it clear, as when they are ubiqutous, it's too late.
I'm not personally against all this stuff, I have the whole kit - even though I tend to ignore it most of the time
Re:Whats up with the ? (Score:1)
It's not really a Windows problem, it's a problem with whatever Katz uses to write these things (probably Word). I've written plenty of things using Windows applications (though not Word) and have not had this ? problem.
Poor Thinking (Score:1)
There are a number of problems with this argument, many of which we've seen before and we'll see again.
One of the first things to notice is that this article isn't thinking, it's emoting. It presents the vague, forboding thoughts of a number of people who, we are assured, know about such things (not to criticize a genius like Arthur C. Clarke, but a great sci-fi writer and an innovative thinker is not necessarily an accurate judge of the future of humanity). Moreover, no concrete ideas or predictions are presented. It's a perfect example of one of the most common errors of bad scientific thinking, the theory cannot be disproved. We are presented with vague references to the end of western civilization and the fall of the information age, all encapsulated into a nicely marketable buzzword- "cyberclysm."
But what, exactly, is this 'cyberclysm'? Will all our hard-drives overflow with information, causing the world to grind to a halt? Will 6 billion people suddenly get sick of it all and simultaneously burn their computers and become primitive herdsmen? Will everyone stop reading magazines and newspapers and books, forcing Katz and the Luddites et al. to get a real job? Nobody seems to know what this cyberclysm will be, they just have a really bad feeling. In fact, there is a reason for this. They make no concrete predictions because they cannot. Any prediction of doom that they could make would expose how utterly ludicrous this concept is. I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible scenario for this cyberclypse which will pass the laugh test when presented to a group of level-headed, intelligent people. I doubt such a scenario exists. Since they can't present rational predictions and ideas, they present us with emotions and feelings and we swallow it whole. It's easier to emote than to think, and there's no easier way to get someone on your side than to appeal to their fear. All of us have second thoughts about our technological lives, and the neo-luddites give us an excuse. "It's not my fault I'm unhappy, it's the societal information glut that's taking away my life."
And, lest we become too convinceed that we are the center of the universe, let us remember that a good 5.5 billion people on this planet, at least, would love to have the luxury of worrying about information overload. "Cyberclysm" seems a pretty strong word for an event that will affect, generously, 10% of the planet's population. Compared to the real problems that most of the people on this planet have to deal with, like whether they can make it through tomorrow without getting shot or bombed or fired or starved to death, this seems rather like whining about the stress brought on by not knowing how to spend all your money.
ANY trend predicts an apocalypse if you extrapolate far enough on a small enough set of data. It's hotter this decade than last decade. If this trend continues, in a thousand years we'll be able to melt lead in our refrigerators. People eat more than they did 30 years ago. In a hundred years, everyone will weigh half a ton and will have to be moved by crane. The number of cars on the street has gone up several million percent since the beginning of the century. By my calculations, the earth's entire mass will be converted to Toyotas in 10 years. As Dilbert says (and as I paraphrase), "I predict huge profitability by assuming that all positive trends will continue indefinitely, and all negative trends are temporary and will reverse themselves within 6 months." Or, to take an example from the late-19th-century version of environmentalism, horses are taking over the world. People were living farther and farther in the suburbs as urban sprawl kicked in, and driving farther and farther to work. As a result, horses were proliferating. Horse dung was inches deep on all the major roads, and grave space for dead horses was running out. The methae-pollution issue alone was extremely serious. Everyone was sure that industrial society would be brought to a halt by the horse crisis. Guess what? It wasn't. Instead someone named Henry Ford came along and made the whole issue moot.
The point is, forces balance. Situations change. Nothing keeps going forever. In this particular case, the cyberclysm prediction comes quite naturally, as long as one ignores any possible balancing forces. But, there are balancing forces here. Human beings are a species of moderation. We don't like extremes, and we tend to seek the middle ground. Any time a major force of change comes into human history, a balancing force immediately arises. The bigger the change, the stronger people's opposition to change.
This argument, in fact, bears a striking resemblance to the ideas of Karl Marx. He saw, in his own time, the power of capitalists seemingly rising out of control, until the inevitable result was a revolution, a capitalclysm if you will, when the system finally collapsed under its own weight. Marx, like the cyberclysm prophets, saw only one trend, one force, acting over a very short time period. He extrapolated this to infinity, predicting that unchecked capitalism would eventually grow so out of control that it would destroy itself. In making this prediction, he ignored that fact that capitalism was never 'unchecked.' He ignored the balancing effects of forces like democracy and the labor movement, which have so far prevented capitalism from achieving this exponential explosion. As a result, we have not had a single Marxist revolution anywhere in the world (and if you think otherwise, why is it that the most ostensibly Communist countries are those which had the least capitalist infrastructure before their revolutions? Shouldn't the revolution against capitalism have happened someplace where they actually had capitalism?).
The same applies here. As technology's role in our lives increases, opposition to it also increases, and people start seeking out more human interaction, and place more importance on getting things done themselves. The information glut begins to be balanced, steadily and smoothly, rather than in an apocalyptic revolution. This is why any specific cyberclysm prediction would sound so ridiculous. We all know how conservative humans are, and we all know that we only allow social trends to go so far before we get uncomfortable. That, in a nutshell, is why there will be no cyberclysm.
We all are used to thinking this way. When we are in a bad mood, the world is headed to hell in a handbasket. When we are in a good mood, things are doing all right, and the world is in its proper order. Our moods, and our own very local perceptions, are blown up into planetary trends. We love to take short term changes and extrapolate them to the end of the world. Katz and the people he's listening to have given in to this temptation.
Re:not saving time? (Score:1)
The question that may need to be asked is if technology is benefiting soiciety as a whole? With each new device that is created, is it worth having an army of technicians and designers to create, update and maintain it?
Probably, hey it's great for the economy!
"Simplify. Save time. Reduce effort." (Score:1)
Has not!
Computers help us do our work better. They do not promise to let us work less, or to simplify our lives, or to liberate us from [insert horror here].
What computers do do is magnify our productivity. As the anvil let us bend iron, the microchip offloads menial tasks, freeing the mind to think.
Architects, just as one example, no longer need to spend days painstakingly drawing perfect lines on blueprint; instead, they can sit at a CAD program and use their brains - arguably far more taxing! But the line-drawing is best left to a laser printer. Said architect might work twice as hard, now, with his computer; but he'll make five times as much money with the added clients he can accomodate.
That's what it all boils down to. The creation of wealth, the betterment of life. Computers are very good at helping us accomplish the above.
Drowning in what? (Score:1)
Drowning in what?
1999 has thus far been one of the top five most economically successful years of the twentieth century. This entire decade qualifies as the most prosperous, or is at least second to the Twenties. Our economy's engine is the microchip, say people with more education & experience in economics than the author of the above quote.
Yes, Tamagotchi is absurd. But it sells well, and kids all over the nation open their wallets for a Tam of their own - and that money helps move the economy forward.
In this world, profitless enterprises go to hell quickly. Nothing really useless lasts for long. Even psychics are going out of style.
If this constitutes drowning, then I'd like to see what this quote's author considers swimming.
Technophage's Dilemma (Score:5)
We only have two choices? Abandon all technology and flee to the woods or embrace the 'consuming technological chaos and be subsumed'? (Okay, that's my phrase, but I think I get Jon's point.)
How about treating technology as tools? I don't use a computer because I'm afraid that I can't keep up with the world unless I do -- I use it because it helps me do work. I don't write Perl code because of a deep-seated artistic desire for expression (that's what Perl poetry is for), I write it because it helps me get things done.
That's the same reason my father uses a welding torch or an air compressor or a socket wrench. Not because he wants to have the latest and greatest gadgets, but because he can use them.
Yes, I like to keep up with my e-mail, and I like to check a few web sites and newsgroups regularly, but I can take a week at the beach without any of those things and survive just fine.
I think most people can do the same. Thus, it's a false dilemma.
--
QDMerge [rmci.net] 0.21!
Re:What I'm worried about (Score:1)
He used it to poke fun at people worried about The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse (usually, drug dealers, pedophiles, terrorists, and spies).
thad
Katz's Long Posts - and the New Luddism (Score:1)
My response is two-fold. First, why is it that those who refuse to make the effort to organize themselves using the new technology are allowed to drown the rest of us in their shameless meanderings. Get a life! Organizers and information flow can be managed *USING* the new technology.
It is possible to disconnect oneself from this technology with an off switch, or with the skillful use of the tools that technology has given us. The dumbing down of society that is gathering momentum -- especially in this country -- argues that anything that takes a little initial effort is bad. Instead everything has to be easy -- removing any challenging decisions from the individual other than those of exterior colors of appliances and type face size for the "dummies" books used to inform the masses.
I would say secondly that technology is viewed by those who take the time to think and use it as a radically liberating force able to transform economies (see the current economic boom in the U.S and elsewhere) and increase the opportunities available to the smart.
As a result this revolution has done more to empower the meritocratic parts of modern society than any number of decades worth of blather about the "confusion" of the terminally confused (or the intellectually bankrupt).
I am on the verge of filtering out any more of Katz's uninformed mental meanderings. Please Rob, or anyone else who controls the idea base from which he grazes -- insist that his contributions add rigor and creativity to the debates on slashdot.
You did it again.... (Score:1)
I have news for you--this is NOT the first time in human history where technological change turned the world upside down and caused all kinds of headaches.
Ever heard of the Rennaissance? The development during that period of the metal movable-type printing press by one Johannes Gutenberg circa 1453 caused in the 30 years afterward a knowledge revolution that turned Europe upside down, because it drastically reduced the cost of the transmission of information, namely that you could print thousands of copies of the same book.
The result was quite obvious--now that people could read the writings of the Church, they discovered that many Church writings often contradicted each other. One person, Martin Luther, printed his famous "Ninety-Five Theses" and had it posted in several places in Europe. The rest, they say, is history.
I find the view of the Luddites to in the end just be a bunch of sour grapes. They don't understand how horrible human existance was before this century, before modern medicine allows human lifespan to reach over 73 years on average. You were lucky if you could live till 50 even as recently as 1900.
POMO schmos and the "what us care" league (Score:1)
Latz's "No one is to blame" attitude seems to fall well in the camp of the latter day saints of Pomo Shmos who see all the wrongs and rights as a matter of little concern.
Blame is for those who have differing opinions , those who dont hold to the central dogma. thus Blame is a weapon that cant backfire, since it has no value in the system other than to cast outwards.
If nothing is to blame, and no one who follows the dogma is ever held accountable, thenit must be the OTHERS, ThEM, who are at fault.
Simply put its a 4 year old's mental state thats been used for over 20 years and now has a PhD's stamp of approval.
Im rubber and your glue
what ever you say bounces off me
and sticks to you
Re:wither comp.risks? (Score:1)
Rather it would seem his posting and sources point out some of the very core problems with his thinking.
If you remeber back to his Blair Witch Project article he lays on heavy about Indi Cinema while short changing some of the greatest works done in the last 5 years out of, what seems at best to be, ignorance.
Looking for JK to use relevant sources is like looking for lemonade drikinge non smokers at teh Space Room.
Wafting Another Airball with Jon "Salieri " Katz (Score:3)
And here we see it, in the stark black and white of truth...Jon Katz is no freind to slash dot, hes no seer of the way or a guide of the day. Hes a snivling scared child who sees the potetnial of all this around him and is afraid, mortaly afraid, of the power he can never control.
Katz, and those of his mindset, are not into advocating the possibilites of tech or the geek mindset of exploration, they seeking to slow it down, chain it up, and hobble its progress so that the mediocre will not feel threatened by it.
The potential of the tech today is scary, it has a potential for great things, both evil and good. Does this mean we cower back from it, lay ourselves has helpless on its altar screaming "Do not crush us oh great cuthulian godhead"?
NO
We take the example of folks like TimBL, of Wozniak, of PARC, or MIT labs, of the hundereds of developers and creatotrs of Linux and countless other programs and systems.
In short we grasp firmt he contols and navigate or ships across this vast ocean of discovery. Yes the waves will roll high and the weather may turn foul, but with a clear mind and a firm understanding we will make our way forward and NOT fall off the edge of the world.
Jon Katz and the FLat Web Society need to go cower in a nice cave and leave the exploration and discovery to those that can handel it. They will come crawling out of thier caves when the hard work is done and the way has been paved.
Look at Jon Katz's writtings of the last few years. It is all there to see. he waits for the way to be paved and the safe houses made..THEN he struts in and proclaims himself a seer of the future. He leads the tourists buses thru the creations and nods at each site as if to say "my hands did hew these once rough rocks to tower so high"
In this age of exploration there is no doubt we will have detractors and soldiers of mediocracy to hold back the progress.
Once we had the Inquistion, burning and torturing all that was unkown to them. We have had the Dark ages and its supporters. We have had Churches and Religious Instituions hampering anything that would detract from its glory. We have had Political Correct Facists and Concerned Parents seeking to control that which did not conform to thier Barneyeqsue view of the world.
Now we have the updated version, The Lucid Ludite, the Concerened Powerless, the Saviour of the Mediocre..Yes Jon Katz is no Cyber Spokesperson..he is the Salieri to the genius of the Net's Mozarts.
The best and only way to counter his brand of retarded developement is to SHINE SHINE SHINE on , to blot out his limp mediocracy with brillant progression.
The war of ignorance is never over, the soldiers of stupiity never truly vanquished. So long as there is a force that counters its dark regression we are and shall ever more be victrious.
Once more into the breech!!
Re:Choice (Score:2)
In the hyper-competitive Los Angeles market, I don't think there's a single bank that charges for teller access.
Incidentally, the poor
Unfortunately, there are very good reasons for these things; the 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed virtually every store in poor areas of the city. Owning a store in a poor area is a gigantic risk, so naturally everything costs more. Due to these cold economic facts, I think the poor always will wind up getting the short end of the stick when they visit the bank or market.
D
----
Re:Interesting Stuff (Score:1)
But not really a new concept, by any means. The cordless phone example is a pretty good one, though. There are tons of things we depend on every day that suddenly become useless if we lose power
Then your silly to buy a critical things that don't also have battry backup.
Your average buggy driver a centry ago could not repaire - let alone make - a buggy. If it broke he/she was just as screwed stuck out in the country as one of us would be with any modern car that broke down.
Technology will always fill the holes. Power's out and we can't use radios? Well that's what Baygen's [windupradio.com] are for
Once fuel cell tech gets a little better we can just stick our cell phones out in the rain and set it in the sun to recharge - or fill it with a little vodka and be charged up for a month.
--
James Michael Keller
Bunk (Score:2)
I'm truly tired of this cycle every 10 years or so where people get into a round of "gloom-n-doom"(tm) books predicting the end of "something" "Anything!"
First it was the death of the printed book, book sales are higher per capita then ever. Perioticals are down yes - but when the point is to have information to the masses faster a daily rag will loose to the net. That's only logical, movible type beat out hand copied text, now something better has come around.
The notion that we are all going to a hell in a gateway cow computer box - a land illuminated by ghoastly green light from billions of blinking "12:00" VCR displays bouncing off trillions of "Free AOL 4.xxxxxxxxx" cd's is just chicken little crying bloody murder because no one wants to by "The end is at hand - by Chicken Little, fifteenth ed" anymore
Sure some people are lost in this brave new world - screw them. They adapt or die. My grandfather made it out of the depression working his way up from a paper boy and came out a millionar running a large supermarket chain down under. Others sat around and wined about how bad things where.
"Information Overload" - bull
Do any of you remember how much a pain in the rear it was just to find one artical from a magazine on microfilm? I spend days in the basements of libraries going blind scrolling through reals of newpapers and time back issues years ago.
Now I type in a few key words in google, yahoo, altavista, etc and I spend a few moment to scan through the results sifted from the eather.
The only thing technology does is shorten our attention spans and patients. 15 years ago I could dial a phone just fine with a rotoray pulse phone. Now I'm pissed off if people give cute numonic phone numbers, 1-800-call-menow and the like, instead of the damn digits so I can finger my phone pad faster - I don't want to be bothered with remembering the cute number - I just want to make a call and get off the line
I hear people complain about the amount of work today - the average work day has been shortened drasticaly over the last 20 years. Especialy in areas heavy into information systems useage. I have people complaine at work if they have to site down and do anything for six hours out of the work day.
In general yes - the work day hasn't gotten shorter - the often hyped "technology will liberate" montra was always bunk cooked up by the likes of Disney imagineers. An individual can now get more work done in the same time. I have a dozen computers around me at the moment, I'm coding, surfing, monitoring my network, watching the firewall, taking calls, and writing this. Could I do that if all I had was a phone and a typewriter?
--
James Michael Keller
Oh please... (Score:1)
This is complete hogwash. I'm an "ardent geek" and I have no troubles "keeping up." I'm still in school, so perhaps that has something to do with it, but the fact that people can communicate with me does not force me to deal with it immediately. I'm not "edgy, grumpy, and impulsive." Heck, I *like* the ability to communicate quickly, deal with problems immediately, and get answers in no time flat.
Once again, Katz comes through with nonsensical tripe. Modern technology is not a problem. Yes, it requires us to learn new skills, but that's what we as human beings do best. I think Katz would change his tune real fast if he were forced to live in ages past. echnology improves our lives immesurably in many, many ways. The good old days are now.
More alarm (Score:1)
How ironic, then, that this article is firmly trapped in the former useless state. The tone is very alarmist, but Mr. Katz fails to elaborate on *how* this "cyberclism" will occur. Why will it cause a cyberclism instead of just causing people to jettison their high-tech-and-overwhelming gadgets? Why will it affect the majority of the people in the world who don't have all the gadgetry? And just what the heck is a cyberclism, and why will it end Western civilization? (And why will it succeed when so many other disasters and calamaties have failed?)
Re:Whats up with the ? (Score:1)
Katz is posting using characters that are outside the acceptable ranges for use in HTML. It just happens that the curly-quotes that Windows uses are outside these ranges. Hence, they're replaced by ?'s.
technology makes us less itelligent (Score:2)
With the advent of the telephone people have discovered that being less accurate is easily correctable by the nature of the telephones two-way communication. Literacy suffered!
Computer gui's use icons and other symbolic means to interface. Peoples ability to identify these things hardly confer any increased understanding of their world. The spell/grammar checking ability of programs further decreases the need for full education of an individual with respect to language skills. the cyberclysm will be a whole group of people who need these forms of communication in order to interact. Literacy will further suffer.
Learn to ignore your technology (Score:2)
Then I was forced to spend two weeks without email.
And you know what? When I cam back, I caught up on the _important_ stuff in less than two hours.
If something world changing occurs, you won't miss it if you don't scan the web today - because the important stuff will still be here next week.
Every day billions of events occur - but you have to realise that you really don't care about 99.999% of them - and that you can cope without most of the rest.
Coming Cyberclysm? Sounds Familiar... (Score:1)
I don't get it (Score:1)
Is Katz's somehow suggesting that in the arena of technology people are becoming blind to pragmatic concerns and using technology for technology's sake? Some perhaps, but I should think that large corporations are more guilty of this particular sin.
People for the most part only adopt things that make their life simpler and easier. Where exactly are these harried info-addicts Jon et al. keep wringing their hands about? Non of my friends are that wired. One of my friends has a cell phone, a palm pilot, and a wireless PDA all kept within close proximity, and none of them have succeeded in overwhelming him with information yet. They are simply tools that he uses to conduct his day to day business. He spends LESS time working because of his gadgets, otherwise he would not use them.
I think that this is a case of journalists and pundits getting wrapped up in gadget overload at technology expos. Most of this crap will never make it into the consumer markets, and very little of that will succeed (the TCP/IP coffee maker will never fly). Just because a few professional journalists and techno-philes can't make sense of it all, doesn't mean the market place won't eventually sort it all out.
Give us some credit Jon. You underestimate the common sense and adaptibility of your species.
-josh
Re:Whats up with the ? (Score:1)
LK
I am Jon Katz. Take me to your leader. (Score:1)
An alien whose audience is on a different planet, which audience only reads the alien writing out of boredom.
Yes, an alien who wants, O so much, to be an earthling. An important earthling.
*sigh* I'm just glad I don't pay for Slashdot content.
"cyber" prefix is for those who do not understand (Score:1)
Much like cyberspace. There is no cyberspace. There never has been a cyberspace. There is no sign that cyberspace is comming any time soon. What we have simply the Internet: a usefull tool for people and machines, both full containted in the real world, to communicate.
My advice: If the best desription you can give for something is "cyber"something, stop, and rethink the problem, you haven't got it yet and maybe "it" doesn't really exist.
Cyberclysm (Score:1)
Re:Cyberclysm (Score:1)
Cordless telephones. (Score:1)
At least cell phones will work without land based power, and anywhere you choose to make the call.
-Rich
The Technological Singularity (Score:1)
More specifically, in a formal scientific paper in 1993 he predicted that it would occur between 2005 and 2030. I don't know if he's done anything along this line more recently. Basically what he says is that the pace of change will increase until..> all rules break down. Perhaps that's why fantasy has become so dominant over science fiction. Or why all science fiction has turned gloomy, but fantasy hasn't. Basically, we can't predict through the singularity. Doesn't mean we can't live through it. Doesn't mean it won't be pleasant. But we can't predict it. And that's scary! (Compared to atom bombs and bacteriological warfare... Yes. People are strange. The unknown is MORE frightening.)
You can probably find his paper posted on the web, but I forget the URL. Doesn't matter, unless you need convincing. Brace yourself. Could be good. Could be bad. Will be strange!
Science Fiction (Score:1)
To me, it sounds more like fear of change than fear of a "Cyberclypse"(what a stupid word...must we preceed everything that has to do with technology as "cyber").
The bottom line is that people will make do with what they have. It won't be the end of civilization. At this point in time, alot of people have disposable income and an interest in electronic gadgets, so developement and sales of these items are up. It isn't due to a "need" for these items. As soon as people lose interest, you will see the decline and this "cyberclysm" will be just another of the many fears of society.
Automobiles -- not a great argument (Score:1)
The rate of fatal accidents for automobiles is still atrocious. In the USA, more Americans are killed by cars every year than died in the Vietnam War. If an enemy did this to us, we would declare war. If relatively as many people died due to airplanes, no one would fly again. Yet somehow we accept this "collateral damage" from the automobile with little grumbling.
The fact that automobiles "play a vital role in most of our lives" simply means that we've structured our society around them, and that we don't know how to live without them anymore. But just because this is, does not mean it is good.
The automobile is the enabler of urban sprawl, the bringer of smog and greenhouse CO2, and the power base of old-time dictators like the Sultan of Kuwait and modern dictators like Saddam Hussein.
But hey, since we've forgotten how to live without them, they must be OK.
And therefore, it must not be a problem to forget how to live without computers, as well?
Techno-determinism, yet again (Score:3)
While Katz seems to take a break from his techno-boosterism and techno-determinism by giving some space to "neo-Luddite" writers (basically, anyone who expresses reservations about the "Limitless March of Technology" gets labeled a "neo-Luddite" these days), he lets the katz out of the bag with this statement:
With this sweeping statement, all thought of human responsibilty is banished. Forget future AIs and a-life; a-life is here today, and it's name is Technology. Forget futuristic scenarious about human freedom being supplanted by machines; the future is now, and we have lost our freedom to Just Say No. Don't bother unplugging; it's too difficult to try, and you won't make a difference anyway.
"Bah, humbug!" I say.
People are responsible for technology, it doesn't "just happen." People create it, people market it, people build infrastructure for it, and people adopt it. At each of these points, there is responsibility. And there is choice involved. Some of the choices may be difficult. Nobody ever said being a free and responsible human person was going to be easy.
If you would like examples, you need look no further than the Amish, who are the living experts of subordinating technology to a vision of what human society ought to look like.
But who wants to live like the Amish? Not many people. This, however, is a choice.
Another example, nearer and dearer to the hearts of /. readers, is Richard Stallman. Rather than submit to the "inevitable" shift in the computing world to proprietary software, he chose and chooses instead to do without proprietary software, and even to do without employment that would prevent him from creating free software.
But who wants to live like Richard Stallman? :^) Not many people, apparantly.
As a final example, consider Microsoft. They are under no illusion that technology simply happens, and expend every effort to make sure it happens in a way that favors the Reign of Bill. The slogan "Where do you want to go today?" (tm) is not a bad question, except that it's offered as a multiple-choice:
- Windows 98
- Windows NT 4.0
- Windows 2000
Notice that there is no "none of the above." Slashdot readers will be quick to recognize that such a "choice" is only "choice" in Newspeak; but are slower to recognize this when the question is larger than that of operating systems and office suites.Out of place? (Score:1)
Most writers and speakers first try and understand their audience before writing. I could see this kind of article be interesting to people who read mainstream media magazines, but not to me/us. Write something that doesn't make me regret clicking on "Read More" for once Jon.
-Dan
Re:Out of place? (Score:1)
The article is out of style, and offtopic from everything else here, I go to
I expect to come here everyday and find stories that say linux is great, because that's what
This site is "news for nerds. stuff that matters." not "news for everyone. everything under the sun."
Feature moderation/rating (Score:1)
Just my 2 copper coins
You Got One Thing Right (Score:1)
Jon, I usually find your articles to be very thought-provoking, though I am usually deeply ambivalent about your positions and opionions, per se.
Not this time, however. This one missed the mark by so far that I could only see one kernel of truth:
You're dead on here. Watching the nighly news as a ping-pong game between big media alarm and marketing machine euphoria can be quite entertaining.
And in case you haven't figured it out yet, this piece is part of the problem.
Maybe next week's installment will deliver the euphoric antidote to this week's alarm. Maybe not. Who cares?
-Esme
--
Esme Cowles
http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/
Re:Bah. People said this would happen before. (Score:1)
I think recording has drastically changed the face of the music industry, both in its role in society, and the way it is appreciated. For example, people in general don't listen to music very closely - I've asked a numebr of friends, musical and otherwise, about this, and very few of them care about much beyond "the general tune" or whether the melody is familiar. I think a lot of this has to do with the place of music as a background - you see it as a soundtrack to a tv show, as a jingle in an ad, being played on the radio while driving, etc... And all this time, people are hardly paying attention to it, let alone really trying to get as much value out of it as they can. Because of this (and other things...) music education, and general knowledge suffers.
One way of looking at it is to say that technology has changed the way we do things, so the music should change to reflect that, and we should have styles that are more or less designed to be background. To a small extent, I agree with this, but it gets to the point where nobody knows that anything else is out there.
I wonder if literature has suffered in the same way? Judging from slashdot comments, and other experiences, I would say no. But I don't really know why, except that it's harder to read a book "in the background".
It's also interesting to note that the situation doesn't seem nearly so bleak in Europe as here in Canada, and for the most part, USA. I was tlaking to someone in Finland who told me that EVERY student, by the time they reach grade 3, knows more than I learned as a music major in my first year of university. This is kinda pathetic, and points towards something - I think it has a lot to do with affordable and easily available recordings, but I don't know why there has been so much less change in Europe. Definitely something to look into.
Re:Interdependence (Score:1)
It's about a guy who goes back in time to medieval poland, and basically starts the industrial revolution several hundred years early, in order to fight off a Mongolian invasion force. It's very interesting becasue he does just what you describe - starts from scratch, mining ore, setting up educational facilities, military, etc... In short, it's not just technological engineering, but sociological. The books are great fun, too! Many silly characters and episodes mixed in with the main plot. It's been years since I read them though... Hope I'm not forgetting stuff!
Re:Who ... or what ... is to blame here? (Score:1)
We lived (I've moved out now) about a half an hour outside of town, and have always been a very busy family. So before the phones, we'd have to plan every day long in advance, to figure out how everyone would get picked up and driven to the next activity/work/home/school. With the cell phones, rather than planning everything, we could just say "I'll call you around noon when i find out where I'll be at 5:00 in order to get picked up" or something of that nature. Certainly, it wasn't about techhie goodies (though I like those too!)
simplify (Score:1)
You are only as tied in as you want to be. You don't HAVE to be online 10 ours a day, you don't have to be fighting your beeper all day, or your cell phone, or e-mail. If you whine and complain that you don't have enough time in the day or the pages keep coming, then you basically over-estimate your self importance. Tune out...talk a walk outside, you know that's the place that isn't INSIDE where the computer is. And I am sure that some people will say that this is rather simplistic and I would say that's the point. I am a software developer, I am surrounded by computers wherever I go. I have an etheret connection in my apartment. I have a cellphone. BUT I TURN IT OFF when I don't feel like answering it.
And I think that Katz is making another universal assumption based on the 'geeks and nerds' that he is always writing about. Exactly what percentage of the population has this problem of not being able to catch up and process all the information coming their way?
Point of View (Score:1)
It is really hard to generalize on something that everyone (or anyone) will agree on with this topic. For me it is easy to see that technology can become too much; the guy next door might think he can never get enough, and maybe he never will. We need to step back and look at the overall picture of what the technology is doing to the world as a whole; once we get there, it may be possible for those of us with differing opinions to agree.
As I see it, technology, as a (rather big) whole, has improved the way we see ourselves going through life. Whether or not it really IS easier, we still perceive it as easier. Running a dishwasher and getting it fixed every couple of years as opposed to doing lots of dishes every night seems like a pretty good trade, even if it does end up costing a couple hundred dollars each time the thing needs fixing.
It can be too much though. The point at which our productivity falls, at which point the technology HINDERS us, is where the problems begin. That point is different for every person, for every technology, for every situation. It can't be easily quantified or measured. That is another place where we, as a society, run into problems. We, by nature, want everything to be identifiable by a number, a measurement, a reading, a specification. We don't like the ambiguity of this, and so we tend to say it is all good or all bad. Either extreme will not work, and will only lead to conflict. We must find our OWN levels of tolerance for the technology, for the situations we are in.
Hmm, I think that comes out to my $0.15 or so
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Choice (Score:3)
One of the good things about technology is that most often it gives you more choices. Think your cordless phone is too fragile? Don't use it! Your beeper is driving you crazy? Chuck it out of the window! Overwhelmed by 500 TV channels? Don't switch the TV on!
I am not going to make wild predictions about the future, but currently people (that is, more or less affluent people in the US) can pick and choose whatever level of technology they feel most comfortable with. Nobody is forcing anybody to use the latest gizmos -- if you think so, you are watching way too much advertising.
As to being overstressed, perhaps those that are need to re-evaluate their priorities. Almost in every situation there is a trade-off of stress against money (usually) or fame (more rarely). Just because a rat-race exists, you don't have to participate in it. Besides, what Katz describes is a US phenomenon. European people take a much more relaxed view of the their workload.
And, by the way, capitalism doesn't work by selling all that is produced. Capitalism works by producting only that which has a chance of being sold (but see the
Kaa
The question is which is to be the master.... (Score:5)
The number one survival skill of the new millennium will be selectivity. Look over the options and throw away anything you don't see an immediate use for. Just don't use it. Be the master of the technology that you allow into your presence, not its servant.
Jarhundertwende and fin de siecle (Score:2)
The thing is, technology redefines what it is to be human. In the past, working with your hands on actual things was thought to be human, wheras being a slave to mass-production machines was thought to be dehumanizing. What has really happened is that since manufacturing has become so productive, "industrialized" nations are now moving away from "industry" to service-based economies. More and more workers are using their "minds" rather than their "hands". We actually look at cultures like the Amish and remark on how "primitive" they are, and how they are "dehuman" in the direction toward "apes".
For the past couple centuries, we've been locked into this scientific angst: we don't want to go backwards and become animals again, and we don't want to go forward and become like robots. Either direction represents a dehumanization.
Everything that Katz says is simply paraphrasing what people said 100 years ago. Its simply a measure of fear and paranoia because they don't know where the world is heading.
Gadgetry as a Way of Life (Score:2)
Simple. People don't want to live like that. Technology will never ever drive the life of the common person. We simply don't want it that way, and never will, despite what the doomsayers predict. We are, first and foremost, physical creatures.
So what good, then, technology? Why all the gewgaws? What can we predict about the future of technology in relation to the common person?
Simple. Technologies will be embraced by the common person only when they become simple enough to easily comprehend.
But, what about all those VCRs blinking 12:00? Well, what about them? A VCR only needs to display the correct time if it is going to be programmed, and most people don't use that function of VCRs. They just pop in a tape and hit Play or Record. Simple.
Take console games. The Sony PlayStation has sold millions of units here and in Japan. The Sega Dreamcast sold over 300,000 units the first weekend it was available. Why? Because they are no-brainers to use. Pop in a CD, turn the thing on. Simple.
Take the Pilot. A computer, yes. Infinitely programmable, but simple to use and easy to program for. Most users will get everything they want from the device out-of-the-box. If a user wants to learn how to download new apps from the web and install them, it's not difficult to do so. The Pilot's simplicity made it a success, and the designers have gone on to make the Visor, which I think is an even simpler design.
What about computers? Are they any different? Yes, because they aren't dedicated like the gadgets mentioned above. A computer can do ANYTHING at all - properly programmed. But a computer out of the box doesn't come programmed to do very much. In order for it to do what the common person wants it to do, the common person must be able to buy software for it, install that software, and learn how to use it. Bingo - orders of magnitude more complex than most other gadgets.
But a computer is worth the investment of time. And computers that are specifically designed, built and programmed to make the above procedure as simple as possible will succeed.
This is why I can't understand the Slashdotters who claim that making Linux easier would "dumb it down". "I had to spend 6 months learning how to unzip tarballs, create executables, learning to grep and awk and configure X! If I had to do it, then by God, everyone else had better, too!" They view deliberate attempts at computer simplification, like the iMac, as wimpburger computers suitable only for newbies.
And what has that attitude gotten us? I recently read a quote from someone who noted that his original 1984 Macintosh could boot up and have his email for him in seconds. That's no longer possible with todays computers, certainly not PCs. Why? Because we've piled technology after technology onto them without attempting to simplify the design in the process. The result? Computers that are difficult to use and crash often.
Computers have managed to penetrate households because they are so useful that people are willing to put up with the shortcomings. But only when these shorcomings are eliminated will computers become as ubiquitous as the TV.
The Wheel of Time (Score:2)
For those of you who started off with the wrong impression, no this is not some off topic Robert Jordan post. However, I think that the incredibly cliche idea of the wheel of time actually applies in this case.
The twentieth century has been the century of statistics. Never before have we more classified just how much time machines save or cost us each day or record it so definitively. What we are doing is externalizing. What I mean by that is this: we are disassociating our actions with ourselves. It is not an overt phenomenon in which people claim lack of responsibility, but a much more subtle syndrome.
By cataloging what "devices" cost us or how they "hurt" us, detriment the quality of our lives, etc., what we are doing is giving those devices power over ourselves. I hate to sound overly Heiddegarian, but we may be losing our Being (I'm not even going to begin to clarify).
The key is that it is not the devices which could cause our downfall, it is ourselves. It is the power we choose to give these devices that worries us. We simply need to make a different choice. Unlike Heiddegar, I am strongly against giving up technology. I think it is very useful, however, it must be our choice when to use it. It is when we let it determine our lives instead of vice versa that the problems begin to occur.
Arthur C. Clarke was wrong when he said that we should worry about machines unpluggin us for they will never be able to do that if we choose not to let them. This is an amazing age where we are determining, perhaps more than ever, what direction the development of all this technology will take. We must simply make sure not to unplug ourselves.
Labour-saving devices do (Score:2)
This is demonstrably false.
Recently a BBC TV series has been showing a family who "went back in time" 100 years, living in a house with only the facilities that would have been there 100 years ago. Gas lights instead of electricity, no washing machine, hot water only for special occasions, and so on.
They hated it. Washday was exactly that: an entire day. Cooking an evening meal for the family took most of the afternoon.
Sure, our lives seem to get more and more hectic. (Who said "Life is so complex that some parts must be imaginanary"?). But that is a matter of individual choice, not driving technology. It is very simple to opt for a less hectic job, or just not work as hard at your current one and forgo pay rises and promotions.
Paul.
Interesting Stuff (Score:2)
I think, all things considered, we aren't any more likely to destroy ourselves than we were 100 years ago. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Re:Interesting Stuff (Score:2)
I live in New Jersey, and I was staying at my parent's house during the time of the hurricane. They lost power on Thursday evening and didn't get power back until Wednesday of the next week. In those 6 days, the only thing that really got unbearable for me to live without was the hot water. Then again, I had just recently gotten back from Pennsic, where there's no power unless you bring it yourself.
My father, on the other hand, went out and bought an $800 generator just so he could watch the baseball game in the comfort of his own living room. I just don't
Re:not saving time? (Score:3)
Who ... or what ... is to blame here? (Score:2)
A number of people have pointed out that you have a choice: of course you don't *need* to have all the toys that modern society makes available, and this is right as far as it goes; however, it ignores two things:
The culprit, or perhaps a culprit (though the main one, IMNSHO) is the culture of consumption. The economies of most wealthier countries are based on consumption: if people don't spend enough on s**t they don't need, the economy goes to pieces. Economists apparently unaware of the second law of thermodynamics might go on about "sustainable development" or "sustainable growth", and people in the US might complain about gas prices (trust me, you have no right to), but nobody seems aware that the amount of available resources, starting with energy, are finite.
It's not as simple as turning off and dropping out ... the change has to be pretty massive. For example: I have never fully understood the "need" for a cellphone for anyone but a stockbroker, an elected official, and a drug dealer, but once the competition's got it and makes herself available 24/7, you have to too or you fall behind. And even if you decide not to play that game, most people have to stop it or the dizzying spiral upward pulls nearly everyone along with it anyway.
I'd continue rambling on, but I suppose I'll stop here.
Science fiction, indeed :) (Score:3)
I highly encourage everyone to read it. The "murderer" of the story kills communication devices, and as a result has been sent to a mental institution. He has a lot of fun telling the psychiatrist that the specific flavor of ice cream he used to destroy the bus radio is probably going to experience a sales increase soon.
Back in reality, I can certainly understand the instinct. I have a SO who "worries" about me if we aren't in touch several times daily, and I end up putting so much time into my "online life" (both trying to stay "informed" and trying to stay "in contact," though information is key for me), that my work suffers at times. Like now.
And on a certain level, it is distressing when people can't manage without their gadgets. I lived in Rochester for a year without a car; at the time, I was working somewhere within easy walking distance of my house, and I also knew the public transit system quite well. And those who had a car since their 16th birthday always look askance. "You WALKED? Oh you poor thing, let me give you a ride." "How can you stand the bus system, it's horrible?" [No it's not!] And so forth. Similar incomprehension is directed at those who don't have a net-connection, a recent-model computer, a computer at all, a television, a cell phone, etc etc etc. It does get a bit silly after a while.
Zen (Score:2)
Seems particularly appropriate here.
While Buddism is not for me - I like the illusion - a certain degree of detatchment is vital when faced with more of a resource than can be used.
Some of that detatchment can be technological. By not
I also detatch from technology in more drastic ways. I go camping from time to time, without bringing any communication technology more advanced than a notepad and fountain pen. And I tend not to use even that. I go outside and watch rabbits and squirrels in my yard, and I can be reached only by the most direct of methods.
And even when I am doing technological things, I use the simplest appropriate technology.
Yet I enjoy the cool stuff.
Some people write that the advanced technology is a tool to them. I approach new technology differently. It is a toy to me until I am ready to use it, and I am very particular about what I use as a tool. A tool changes the person who uses it. A boy with a hammer sees the world as a collection of nails. Without my tools, I would be much less than what I am. The phrase "just a tool" is absurd to me. So I am careful in my choice of tools. But "just a toy" makes sense to me, and I do love to play with the flashy new toys.
Detatchment, again. I can set down a toy and never look back. It does not become part of me. To set down a tool, though, is to reduce my effectiveness, and that is a serious decision.
Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer
My own thoughts... (Score:2)
Actually ... (Score:3)
When I moved back to the rat race in January, I ended up doing the consultant thing. No more 9 to 5 for this techie. I also declined to buy a car and now use taxis, transit, bicycle or the good old train where necessary.
When on a customer project, I work at the necessary pace to get the job done, and done properly, no rush, no BS. When it's done, I'm done.
My friends, especially the ones with mortgages and car payments and hour and a half commutes to thankless DBA jobs in soulless industrial parks in the faceless suburbs, envy me. They say I'm more relaxed than ever, even look healthier.
In the meantime, I'm very connected. Internet connection, cell phone, pager, the whole works. After all, I'm a technologist. The trick is to use the technology wisely and not get overheated in some endless purposeless spiral ratrace.
I don't think it's the technology that's killing people. It's the rat race in the chase for the almighty buck that's at fault. The technology is just technology. The frantic pace at which we use it and let it control us is our own choice.
MAybe it's easier for some than others, but ultimately it all comes down to choice. If you choose to be controlled by the latest in gadgets for no better reason than "everybody else does it, so I have to as well in order to be cool" then you are a victim of corporate produced, mass enforced peer pressure, AKA fashion.
-M
Technological Darwinism? (Score:2)
If you look at the movie The Road to Wellville [imdb.com], you see a number of technological devices created as a result of mankind's ability to harness electric current. Around the time that Edison was bringing the elctric light to the world, a number of other inventors, both serious and "quacks" were creating everything from electric bathtubs to electric hairbrushes, in an attempt to garner a portion of the electricity consuming market share.
A large number of these devices didn't survive. Why? Some, because they were obvious frauds, but many didn't survive because people found that they could get along without them just as well. And I believe that a similar thinning of the technology market is coming too.
Right now, there are several ways to do anything computer-related, from keeping a calendar, to controlling your refrigerator. But simply because these things exist, does not necessarily mean that they are an immediate benifit, and should be embraced and consumed by the markets at large, or that they will be either. People will find, on their own, which methods work the best for them, and use them. If enough people center around a method (be it Java, *nix, whatever), these methods will prosper, and become defacto standards for accomplishing our goals in life, while other methods will wither and perish from lack of use.
In short, yes, we're moving very fast technologically. But we're also, like many new vairants on a species, trying to adapt to a changing enviroment through trying many mutations and variantions on the base form. Some of the variants will find usefullness in the enviroment, and flourish, while others will not, and drop by the wayside.
Just my $.02.
I am a Unix admin who doesn't have a computer@home (Score:2)
On a separate note I do belive that we need the current break neck speed of technology just to keep feeding everyone, with the advance of medcine the population is growing larger and larger but the planet isn't getting any bigger. So our only solution is to find out how we can get more out of our current land.
Ignoring technology is healthy on occasion (Score:3)
When I'm on a vacation, I deliberately leave behind cell phones, pagers, or any communication devices, including radios and televisions.
My ideal is to spend a couple of weeks every year somewhere in the mountains in a little campsite where you don't know or even care if armegeddon has occured. As long as the fishing is great and you can see the stars at night, everything is OK. Doing this allows you to get a stronger perspective about what is really important in life, and try to actually live.
BTW, some of my former supervisors tended to get rather upset when something breaks and they couldn't seem to get ahold of me. The truth is if it is broke, it doesn't really matter if it gets fixed now or later, and if I get fired, so what! There are other employers as well, so just don't plan on me helping out when I'm on vacation. When I get back I'll put the effort and time in to fixing the problems. Otherwise leave me alone.
An interesting e-mail came my way I'd like to post with this is as follows. Somewhat related to this topic, and although I don't totally agree with it, it does give you something to think about. It it attributed to George Carlin but I'm really not sure who wrote it:
The Paradox of our Time
by George Carlin
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgement; more experts, yet more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the times of world "peace" but constant conflict, more leisure but less enjoyment, more kinds of food but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom, a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Re:Sure, it is a viscious circle... (Score:2)
Re:The question is which is to be the master.... (Score:2)
Same thing with the cell phone. When I'm working, I'll answer it. When I'm bored, I'll answer it. When I go to spend time with my girlfriend, the cell phone and the pager get left behind or turned off.
Filtering is one of the things that the human brain is great at. Ever seen a newbie the first time they walk onto the street in NYC? They're heads and eyes are all over the place... they're craining their heads to view the sky scrapers, they're looking at all the strangely dressed people and the huge billboards... and then they get headaches and neckaches and get tired real quick. Then you see the normal new yorkers that walk with a purpse and hardly ever budge to look at ANYTHING weird. It's kind of funny... but it's all neural filtering. And if we're to survive in this constantly connected world with all of the information, that's what we're going to have to learn to do.
Re:My own thoughts... (Score:2)
The current trends indicate that computers and networks will be (and indeed, already are) a unifying force that bridges the economic class bounderies and creates greater opportunities for those on the bottom to improve thier condition.
---
vilvoy
Common sense with flamebait overtures (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is complete flamebait when posted to a geek forum. It's preposterous. The concept that geeks are "bombarded" by too much data is a bit, well, like saying that when the ice caps melt, the fish will have a little too much water. Sure, there's a problem here, but you're talking to the wrong segment of society.
Katz appears to be talking about a human difficulty that has existed since the industrial evolution. We're too busy. Every month someone suddenly looks around, pisses on the previous speaker, and says, "now we're really too busy." Well, yes. We were too busy last week too. Yes, we keep getting busier. Sure, technology helps (or was that hinders?). So does the sub-urbanization, the increasingly entertainment-based nature of society, and so on.
What Katz, along with most other negative-futures announcers, is missing here is a growing movement of simplification. Is this neo-ludditism? Not at all. Just doing less. It would appear that all you have to do to stay out of this insane media fray is take a walk. With your feet. Crazy, eh? You can even use your computer when you get back home.
And, get this, people are actually doing it. Those folks on the west coast have probably encountered this (I wouldn't know, I don't live there). I keeping seeing this made reference to more and more...
For my part, yes, I'm a programmer. I rarely use my computer at home for more than 3 hours a week. In fact, for about five months, I didn't have a home PC. I have other hobbies, like hiking. It's really pretty easy to avoid being consumed by this rabid, demonic media deluge.
Of course, for those who enjoy the rat's cage, you can keep pushing the e-pedal and the e-soma will just keep on coming...
Calm down... (Score:2)
Try Zen.
I Agree-- technology only rules us if... (Score:2)
Firstly: "There are hordes of serious-minded people who insist that computing is driving us towards a Cyberclysm, when humanity becomes overwhelmed as it tries and fails to cope with the number, complexity, speed and nature of the things we make."
Humanity? How are we defining that here? I'd like to bring up the point that there are countries who don't have Y2K problems because they don't even have computer chips in use anywhere. Maybe I'm more aware of this than others because I live in a fairly rural area, but technology hasn't infiltrated the entire sum of human experience on the planet (yet).
Secondly: "Technology has a mind, life and direction all of its own. It's inherently uncontrollable, even if anybody was up to trying."
Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what this is trying to say, but it strikes me as ridiculous! "Inherently uncontrollable"? I have to disagree! While the products of technology can be unreliable (as can everything else in the physical world), technology itself isn't some weird anthropomorphic force with a will and mind of its own. I think an attitude like that contributes simply reduces trust in technological developments. Technology is simply a tool of human kind; it is only as good, bad, or unpredictable as we make it. What? We didn't realize that the atom bomb could cause such massive and unsuspected destruction when we first developed them? Oops-- chalk that up to a failure by human beings to fully study the repercussions of such technology. Let's not project human traits onto things that don't deserve it.
Thirdly: "Perhaps the idea that there are people who keep up with all this stuff is in itself a technological myth."
Of course it is! Who COULD? A human being can't even visit all of the exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum, much less absorb even just the useful information available through the Net. This is a notion I've never bought into anyway.
Finally: However, this article also doesn't allow for something humans are extremely adept at: adaptation! We've created a new environment for ourselves with technology; so what? We are an intelligent, changeable species. We have the ability to survive in changing conditions. The technology we are creating is part of our evolution. Yes, there are forces we've unleashed that are beyond our immediate control. But there are better solutions than running around in circles waving arms over our heads and screaming. The people who will out-survive their own technology will be the ones who face it calmly, rationally, and using those big lumps of grey matter nature gave us. "That leaves most of us holding the bag, confronted with two noxious choices"; yes, we have those two choices, but we also have OTHERS in ADDITION to that!!
-ARJ
Once Again, Lizard beats Katz (Score:2)
Luddites are, basically, parasites, and ought to be denied such things as vaccinations, glasses, sterile medical instruments, and other'complex' things. (Sale, quoted in Katz' article, whines about computers and loves his old manual tyepwriter. Apparently he believes a machine with thousands of precision-engineered moving parts grew on the typewriter tree. Let's see him write his rants with a quill pen.)