Live data from Hacker News

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

151–160 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#151
post #27
post #14

The book's title is a nod to the Roger Waters album/song that deals with the same theme.

The book predates the song and album by about 7 years, so the album name references the book. Postman even mentioned the fact in his 1995 book "The end of education"

Thank you. I was mislead by the date on the post and did not know the book was older. TIL.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#152
post #56

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…

Which is not really wrong. Chess can be fun, but I always thought it is pretty fascinating that the chess champions are viewed by the media as some kind of genius. I mean, it's just a game, not more but also not less.

Yeah, if you spend your life solving crossword puzzles, you end up intellectually poor by most standards.

Note that this might also hold to some degree for computer programming.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#153
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to say the "why not inject yourself with bleach!" people shouldn't be running the show while there's a class of people who do what people tell them without questioning whether it's a good idea. People in power have a responsibility not to suggest things that would kill people. That isn't a high bar.

This assumes people are stupid and have no intelligence of their own and needs to be told what they should be doing.

I'd prefer that the people elected to lead are smarter than I am.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#154
post #25
post #14

The book's title is a nod to the Roger Waters album/song that deals with the same theme.

I think it’s the other way around — the book is from ~ 1985 while the Roger Waters albums is ~ 1992.

Thank you, my bad, you are right, as the other sibling comment.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#155

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…

Is this meant to be an analog to Postman’s argument? Because it isn’t. His argument doesn’t really have a moral bent to it. It’s a very practical argument that different mediums are capable of carrying different messages.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#156
post #141
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're enriching their bank accounts just as they're impoverishing their spirits. On their deathbeds, no one ever says "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office." The same could be said for any other wealth-motivated exercise. If I have learned one thing in life it is this: money is, at best, a necessary evil. A means to an end. Pursuing it as an end in itself is an indication that we have strayed from the path…

I swear I am going to, on my deathbed, say "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office," just to stop this quote going around. In the last five years I've had a few conversations about regret with elderly relatives who have now passed away. None of them regretted going to work. My grandparents met at work. One regretted that she'd been a draftswoman rather than an engineer, but that's almost the exact opposite. I…

> I don't understand why people think doing good work that inspires pride and then getting paid for it is going to be some kind of horrible deathbed regret.

Because there is nothing in the definition you give that remotely looks like the median job. Societies are not structured to maximize the number of jobs that fits this definition. If social structure happens to fit your Ikigai, congratulation you won the cosmic loto, enjoy.

But maybe it’s not a relevant point to show surprise on this point. Consider how much people in the rest of humanity will have to go through major existential stressful abhorrent challenges, geopolitical struggles, being effectively reduced to dull task slaves by whoever happen to be their lord of the day. How then to be surprised that at the end of their life they can think "work moments were so shitty, I wish I had spend more enjoyable ones like those I experienced while taking time with people I deeply sincerely love".

By the way, if you haven’t yet do that today, tell at least to at least three people around you how much you love them and care that they enjoy moment passed together. I promise you won’t regret it on your death bed. ;)

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#157

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…

If this man knew TikTok, he'd have a stroke.

[deleted]

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#158
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whats wrong with headshots on the PC while doomscrolling on the phone in the age of monsters and idiots ?

If you, like me, would have had to watch people play Candy Crush on the Tube [= the London subway] on the way to work every morning for seven years, you would not ask. I felt terribly sorry for that loss of GDP and decline in mean global IQ.

Why would playing Candy Crush on the subway have any impact on GDP or IQ? Sounds like a non sequitur.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#159
post #64
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that should disqualify a presidential candidate… why exactly?

The OP did not express the idea properly: people are not prejudicially disqualified because of the industries they worked in, but intrinsic disqualification comes from twisted profiles. "Guts exciters", getting followers through seducing their lower instances, is one of them. I am not labelling individuals here - but there are very many around the world fitting that description.

My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible.

Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#160
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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN