Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#41

Post by malthaus »

alexashka wrote: post #22

Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one. They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize? It's not what stupid people do in their free time - it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference. Nietzsche laid this out quite beautifully in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Huxley and Orwe…

are you saying smart people are immune to the temptations of attention-dopamine?

because i'd consider myself above average in terms of intelligence and ambition but i still fall into the procrastination trap often. now you might say that this makes me in fact "stupid" per your defininition (or maybe arrogant as i overestimate myself) but i see this in other people as well.

i also would not say that being "productive" as in moving humanity ahead must be the KPI by which everyone is measured. you only have one life, you can spend it how you want, even if that is watching tiktoks 24/7.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#42

Post by tuatoru »

gomerspiles wrote: post #8
zabzonk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person ELECTED for president of the USA came from show business - Reagan.

A demented figurehead with other people behind him directing the show. It's as if acting was the perfect training for the worst idea for a position in a system of checks and balances.

[flagged]

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#44

Post by sph »

cen4 wrote: post #19

Think more about Attention. Not about Information. Information is exploding and global available Attention doesn't grow. People who pay attention to one thing, can't use the same time to pay attention to something else. So govts and corps fight over this common pool of Attention using the Media (TV/Movies/Radio/Social/News/Sports/Gaming etc etc), just like they fought over land and oil and other natural resources. Me…

> But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. We await someone or some group to articulate that vision.

One of the best things I've done for myself is to stop reading the news. You will not believe how this ignorance has led me to a calmer life, to the gasp and concern of my peers, wondering how am I able to cope, to exist, without knowing what happens "in the world?"

As you say, anyone has 1 unit of attention, and unlike many other things, it is fully in our control. The biggest lie modern generations have been told is that the more knowledge about things, the greater the happiness. That you need to know what happens half a world away from you, often in more detail than what happens at your doorstep.

What saddens me the most about the future generations is seeing how politicised they has become, politics the game of rich old people; the powers that be have figured out that if they turn what happens in the palace into entertainment, people are distracted and don't get into them silly ideas like trying to change things. These days politics is slapstick comedy for "grown ups", and it's sad to see it infect the younger generations now.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#45

Post by judofyr »

alexashka wrote: post #22

Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one. They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize? It's not what stupid people do in their free time - it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference. Nietzsche laid this out quite beautifully in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Huxley and Orwe…

> Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one.

Are you talking about this comic (i.e. a few sentences from the book) or the whole book?

I read the book a few years back and it's entirely focused on culture as a whole and less about the individual choices. He's not making a point of "television makes you dumb" (or "dumb people watches television"), but rather he makes the distinction between an "oral"-, "press"- and "television"-based culture. He claims that it's bad when television becomes the main platform that a society centers its communication around.

He's also honest that there's probably far more junk (in absolute terms) in printing than in television: "Television is not old enough to have matched printing's output of junk." It's not about the amount of "junk" – it's about something more fundamental about the medium.

I found the book quite interesting and would highly recommend reading it!

> They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize?

That's an extremely pessimistic view of the world: Categorizing a set of human beings as "stupid" and saying that it doesn't matter how society is structured?

And "smart people" are also influenced by how our society is structured, no?

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#46

Post by ianpenney »

moffkalast wrote: post #26
cen4 wrote: post #19

Think more about Attention. Not about Information. Information is exploding and global available Attention doesn't grow. People who pay attention to one thing, can't use the same time to pay attention to something else. So govts and corps fight over this common pool of Attention using the Media (TV/Movies/Radio/Social/News/Sports/Gaming etc etc), just like they fought over land and oil and other natural resources. Me…

Attention is all you need?

This is a very deep thought that has crossed my mind quite a lot as I’ve used LLMs and other AI.

Ironically, we are discovering the human condition by evaluating what we are “not”.

… but, we are.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#47

Post by helloplanets »

A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages…chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements … they require out-door exercises–not this sort of mental gladiatorship.

A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.

Scientific American, July, 1858

[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/19th-century-conce...

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#48

Post by gomerspiles »

tuatoru wrote: post #42
gomerspiles wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A demented figurehead with other people behind him directing the show. It's as if acting was the perfect training for the worst idea for a position in a system of checks and balances.

[flagged]

Biden was never an entertainer like the other 2 demented old men (entrusted with WMDs) under discussion.

If we send you to space you'll have to pass a fitness test.. Because we aren't stupid?

But sure, anyone in the middle of a psychotic break who can't tell fact from fiction should be fine for the entirety of national interests. Shoot down another plane for the old Gipper!

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#49

Post by kubb »

helloplanets wrote: post #47

A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages…chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements … they require out-door exercises–not this sort of mental gladiatorship. A game of chess does not add a single new fa…

I kind of agree. Chess sucks big time, especially played online. Playing with your grandpa in the park is OK.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#50

Post by rramadass »

moffkalast wrote: post #20

It is interesting that these two books essentially show the most extreme end result of the two major economic systems. Socialist authoritarian communist states gravitate towards 1984, capitalist liberal democracies turn into Brave New World.

Exactly! Both Orwell and Huxley are right but in different contexts. Also note that both of their works are an exaggerated caricature of aspects of Society which they wished to highlight and show its insidiousness. Thus one has to look beyond the "painted picture" and understand what was being meant.

However; Orwell had a better insight on the overall issues which can be found in his essays eg. "Notes on Nationalism", "All Art is Propaganda", "Politics and the English Language" (eg. Newspeak) etc.

Post reply on HN