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

181–190 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#181

Post by FrustratedMonky »

dangus wrote: post #170

Huxley’s fears presented in this particular way are immediately debunked by actual book sales and education statistics. Independent bookstores have been consistently growing since 2009: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol... The book industry is expanding with particularly strong growth in e-books and audiobooks: https://worldmetrics.org/book-industry-statistics/ Educational attainment is gen…

I think you can argue that 'books' were deemed as intellectual in Huxley/Orwell's time, so banning them would be a sign of society decline ---> BUT, todays books can be seen as just part of the entertainment distraction. Books sales are up, but how many of them are YA, Manga , Pop-Fiction. They are as shallow and distracting as a TV Show.

I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. But it is still playing into distraction.

Note: I Like Manga, but those series that are 100 volumes long, that is distracting.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#182

Post by renanoliveira0 »

somedude895 wrote: post #101
scandox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lenin eventually took the same view - that chess was distracting him from a higher purpose. Perhaps a harmless game would have been a better use of his time.

I much prefer people amuse themselves to death than they think and theorize themselves- (or others, in the case of many late 19th and early 20th century intellectuals) to death.

At what point did this become a valid and legitimate issue?

Why do we feel the need to prefer or not prefer what others do with their time? Isn’t that something that concerns only the person and their own life, which really shouldn’t concern us at all?

I think your point really highlights this ethical mindset that has become so prominent today, especially with the rise of the internet.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#183

Post by CraigJPerry »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #128
willguest wrote: post #83

Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there. Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade ou…

> Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources ... Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...

"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case" — Nathan Heller

Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea -

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” — John Wanamaker

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#184

Post by wrs »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #130
tlb wrote: post #62

The sad thing is that none of it is very amusing. Current events twitter is more aggravating than amusing. We're aggravating ourselves to death.

[flagged]

> X/Twitter is showing things as they are

Wow. No, X/Twitter is showing things people (and quite a few bots) say. There’s no mechanism there to emphasize things that are. In fact you’re rewarded for saying things that aren’t, if they generate engagement, which is so much easier if you just make stuff up.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#185

Post by aklemm »

I just listened to this a few weeks ago. It’s incredible and really helps frame how we got here and is still very relevant to social media even though it’s written about TV/Hollywood. You’ll be hard pressed to find deeper media analysis that remains very approachable.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#186

Post by photochemsyn »

Brave New World supposes a world of plenty controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats; 1984 supposes a world of scarcity also controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats. One society is controlled by the carrot, and in the other society, given the shortage of carrots, the stick is brought out to maintain the social order.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#187

Post by Mistletoe »

_yb2s wrote: post #165
tehnub wrote: post #38

People make too much of what Orwell supposedly feared may happen some day. He was writing about stuff the Soviet and British governments were doing in his time, and in particular, imagined what Soviet rule over Britain may look like. Assigning this philosophy to him and criticizing him for it seems unfair.

Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.

I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#188

Post by renanoliveira0 »

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.

Well said. I think the issue stems from the same point.

Both cases assume that individuals are being coerced out of their potential to transform the world for the better, whether by Big Brother or by TikTok. In my view, both stem from an assumption that I don’t see playing out in the real world: that all individuals have the desire or capacity to make a difference and be something "more".

I think this idea came from the Enlightenment. That’s when we started to forget that, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority are just here to occupy space.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#189

Post by bschmidt1 »

It's amazing that solving death and aging is not Goal #1 of every rich and poor person on the planet. Death is coming for you and you're trying to get rich? Engaging in politics? Fighting? What's that gonna do when you're falling apart in real time?

We're all dying fast. Medical industry can't stop it either, they don't know how. Nobody does.

Yet nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#190

Post by randomdata »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #183
TacticalCoder wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources ... Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...

"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case" — Nathan Heller Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea - “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know…

He doesn’t speak to any particular split. The government forces the private sector to do pointless work as much or more.
Post reply on HN