[deleted]
How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
371–380 of 443 posts
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you and the article and further... Many companies are trying to take search, for example, to the next level by brining predictability through your history as well as your graph. It takes decisionmaking out of people's minds. "You show a history of reading this and that book, have watched these movies and your circle of meaningful people have influenced you thus, so we have this book on its way to you now…
You can look at it as removing our humanity, or you can look at it as supplementing our humanity. Prior to the written word, we had to devote time and effort to passing down information through the spoken word. By offloading this task to an external device (wall, tablet, parchment, paper, book, screen), we've been able to use that time and brainpower to focus on other items, while also increasing the fidelity of our…
>supplementing our humanity..
This is exactly the problem. Supplementing x implies complete knowledge of what ideal x is. And what the "ideal" is nearly impossible to assess, since it require complete knowledge of future. I mean, what form of a "human being" will the most optimal through all of human existence? When you supplement without knowing the ideal, it has more chance to do harm than good.
>using these tools is what makes you human, as without them, what's really the distinguishing feature that separates you from the apes?..
Ok. But is it the only thing? What about creativity? We have language. We can create great stories and beautiful poems in them. We can look into the secrets on nature and create immensely powerful tools with that knowledge. Isn't that more of a hallmark of being a human, than mere dependency on our tools?
And is there no limit on how much we are dependent on them. Does it make sense to trade of our innate capabilities in the long term, for minor conveniences in the short?
I had a friend who could easily navigate any complex routes and had all the local routes and short cuts in his head. I respected him for that. Now he cannot find way around a supermarket without GPS. A part of him, that once I respected as a human being, is gone now.
>To me, nothing defines humanity more than the constant improvement of our race, our reach, and our capabilities.
You think our race is improving? Why? Because we have smartphones and have a massive and collective addiction to it?
>and the largest accumulation of knowledge the human race has ever seen..
It is also one of the biggest Ad/propaganda delivery channels.
Easy access to information does not make a difference is the people does not have the drive to consume it. If you give internet to 10 persons 9.5 of them will use it for social media and porn. How many of the addictive smartphone users have you seen consuming wikipedia? I have personally NEVER, not even once, seen someone reading wikipedia on a smartphone.
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What we are" is meant in the context of "To me, nothing defines humanity more than the constant improvement of our race, our reach, and our capabilities." which I outlined in my original comment. In that respect, the tools are just stepping stones to let us be us . Sure, we might have less specialized cells in the hippocampus because we aren't exercising a specific (conceptual) tool, but I don't see that as any diff…
Listen to that radiolab broadcast. I'm pretty sure that is the one that goes into detail about a man that grew up deaf (in El Salvador, I think) and without any access to sign language. The broadcast has a woman that went there as a grad student and, I think, ended up teaching the guy sign language. A translator for the guy describes when he finally 'got' language and from what I remember, it was life and soul changi…
> "what would it take to rob a person of their humanity?"
It really is a big question, but this bit by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (a book I highly recommend, it's as timely as ever sadly) really struck me.. it's on page 667 in the German version, this is my crappy translation:
> Humans, in so far as they are more than a completion of functions able to react, whose lowest and therefore most central are the purely animal like reactions, are simply superfluous for totalitarian systems. Their goal is not to erect a despotic regime over humans, but a system by which humans are made superfluous. Total power can only be achieved and guaranteed when nothing else matters except the absolutely controllable willingness to react, marionettes robbed of all spontaneity. Humans, precisely because they are so powerful, can only be completely controlled when they have become examples of the animal like species human.
So I would say at least part of the answer might be: taking away the ability to act instead of just react, and the the ability to start a logical chain of thinking from new premises (which is also something she mentions, though of course in contrast with totalitarianism, which forces a certain flow of logic based on some premises set in stone; she's not writing about what it means to be human).
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly as you said: old plants. We don't update them as we should to make them as safe as they can be. That's not an engineering problem, that's a political problem. Waste storage? Same story. We have plenty of useless desert in the US, but people don't want to be anywhere remotely near them. Recent advances in solar and wind technology might make it within reach...if we were dealing with 1-2 billion people, not clo…
I don't understand the nuclear waste "problem". Anything that is radioactive for thousands of years is also not very radioactive because it has such a long half-life. More concerning would be the chemical toxicity hazard, but that is void because nuclear waste is vitrified (turned in to glass), which makes it extremely chemically inert. Then there's the possibility of recycling the spent fuel (waste?) in fast spectru…
It's radioactive for that long because it /is/ waste. We haven't finished extracting the valuable energy from it yet. (that's what 'waste reduction' (breeder) reactors are supposed to do; concentrate up the useful stuff and leave most of it clean enough to either decay really quickly, or so slowly that it's not harmful.)
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the nuclear waste "problem". Anything that is radioactive for thousands of years is also not very radioactive because it has such a long half-life. More concerning would be the chemical toxicity hazard, but that is void because nuclear waste is vitrified (turned in to glass), which makes it extremely chemically inert. Then there's the possibility of recycling the spent fuel (waste?) in fast spectru…
It's radioactive for that long because it /is/ waste. We haven't finished extracting the valuable energy from it yet. (that's what 'waste reduction' (breeder) reactors are supposed to do; concentrate up the useful stuff and leave most of it clean enough to either decay really quickly, or so slowly that it's not harmful.)
> It's radioactive for that long because it /is/ waste.
I'm not sure what you're saying here? How does being waste make it radioactive?
If it still contains valuable energy it isn't waste. By virtue of the fact that nobody wants it I'm assuming that energy can't be extracted economically at this time?
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#376The author apparently has his own agenda, after seeing the time well spent link all over the article.
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you and the article and further... Many companies are trying to take search, for example, to the next level by brining predictability through your history as well as your graph. It takes decisionmaking out of people's minds. "You show a history of reading this and that book, have watched these movies and your circle of meaningful people have influenced you thus, so we have this book on its way to you now…
You can look at it as removing our humanity, or you can look at it as supplementing our humanity. Prior to the written word, we had to devote time and effort to passing down information through the spoken word. By offloading this task to an external device (wall, tablet, parchment, paper, book, screen), we've been able to use that time and brainpower to focus on other items, while also increasing the fidelity of our…
How much time did it take to post this long comment ?
And how often do you engage here this same way ?
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just looking at your first point, She dispelled rumors left and right: "fracking causes earthquakes!" - actually it's poorly built injection wells and wastewater storage that causes earthquakes In your mind fracking is separate from building injection wells and wastewater storage? All of your examples are the reasons why fracking is dangerous. Just because people get confused about whats being pumped in, doesn't make…
Dangerous doesn't mean too dangerous. Nuclear energy is dangerous but any projection of energy use that accommodates growing population and energy usage AND expects carbon reductions AND doesn't include growing nuclear use is simply impossible. EDIT: Also worth noting that there is a clear correlation between the increase of electronics/battery recycling in the West and lead poisoning cases in Kenyan children where t…
What about the absurd amount of water, an increasingly scarce resource, used by fracking?
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the demo was with a graduation photo, and a few suggested responses like "You look great!" "Congratulations, so happy for you" or something similar). Don't know why anyone would actually use features like this. It's very impersonal and insincere
People already just like photos like that. Or say simply "happy birthday" to everyone when Facebook tells them it's time. It's a small step from this state to a slightly extended set of canned responses to pick from.
The "Happy birthday" messages were nice the first time (circa "thefacebook"), but the more I thought about it the more depressing and creepy it became. I hid my birthday, then closed my wall, and then left facebook entirely. Now it's only sincere messages from a close few, which feels like much more.
Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really curious what you specifically are doing that's such a huge lifestyle boost for you. I really use apps on my phone for: 1. Calendar 2. Email 3. Messaging (mostly with one other person, but occasionally a few others) 4. looking stuff up on the web 5. Reading a bit in my downtime 6. Listening to music, podcasts or audiobooks 7. Checking the weather I suspect most people are in the same boat, give or take a fe…
These days I use Tasker to make my phone a dumb phone when the display is off. Wifi, GPS and BT are off, mobile data is off. I can receive calls and texts, but no data transfer. This means that people close to me can get in touch if my phone is off, but apps that want to sync things or notify me can wait until I open my phone. I also don't have facebook/twitter installed on my phone, although I use fb occasionally vi…
I find Gmail find for blocking spam but I don't use those categories as they don't make any sense to me. I like the data blocking idea but text only is too clumsy a tool; I use texts as infrequently as I use email (essentially never unless I have to). I've trained myself to only have people I care about in my contacts lists in the various apps, and to not stop everything and tend to my phone as soon as it makes a sound.