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

Amusing ourselves to death

onthepathofknowledge.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#21

Post by pharke »

_bfhp wrote: post #10

I never finished 1984 but both seem to ignore the ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism and consumerism that continues to rule the world, money and capitalism. In 1984, or at least this comic, power and violence seems to happen for their own sake, "power corrupting power", and similarly for Huxley's hedonism. The comic claims "Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to pas…

You should finish both books rather than go by the superficial text in those comics. Huxley lays out a society founded upon consumerism and, implicitly, a rampantly free market. Orwell's notion of the future seems to assume that the state has such total control that those in power may have anything they desire while the rest of the proles are left to scavenge what they can from the gutter. Simply because currency is not a major topic in either of the books does not mean they do not discuss the mechanics of power and social influence.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#22

Post by dingfeng_quek »

da02 wrote: post #14
swombat wrote: post #8

Anyone actually read that book? Would you recommend it?

Alan Kay recommended it. He kept bringing it up. I finally read it last week. It's awesome. I think you can apply what people did with the TV to how people use social media: a series of interruptions. Someone posted the pdf of the 20th anniv. edition. Google: Amusing Ourselves to Death pdf

It could be depressing as well, since the described effects correspond to the erosion of many important public institutions (like democratic governance).

Seems like this decade is a good time for an update on this issue, now that entertainment technologies are ubiquitous and totally attention grabbing, and cognitive psychology gives it good scientific grounding.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#24

Post by mercer »

So here's a question that has been on my mind for a while. I regularly read articles on some aspect of our society that is distressing. Articles such as this one, as well as articles on 'consuming devices killing creativity', 'bite-sized articles keeping us from reading bigger material like books', 'our school system turning us into automatons', and so on.

While I find myself agreeing with some of these articles based on my observation of myself and others, I can't help but wonder to what degree they actually apply to 'the larger population'.

All these people mindlessly consuming memes on their devices could be creating something new instead. That's wasted potential. But would they in any other time period, faced with the societal dangers of those times, be any more creative?

All these people reading bite-sized articles could be reading meatier material instead. Again, wasted potential. But there was a time were much of these people couldn't even read, or didn't have access to much information, so any reading and awareness of the world at large by chunks of the population is a win anyways.

And before we had schools, didn't most people follow some other kind of pre-determined path that shaped them to function appropriately in their respective societies, losing potential in the process?

Basically, when discussing these supposed problems, are they really problems, or do these things just fall short of what we can imagine, some potential that we project on the entire population (which is not a bad reason for discussing them, of course)? Isn't it the case that in any time period there are only smaller subsections of people who create, research, and/or people who are autodidacts that eschew a traditional education for something different?

Would those of us who are amusing ourselves to death not simply do something else 'mindless' in previous generations?

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#25

Post by gizzlon »

swombat wrote: post #8

Anyone actually read that book? Would you recommend it?

Yes, IIRC parts where a little dull but it gave me a fresh point of view..

Remember thinking that TV did not end up causing all the problems he thought...

and then thinking that maybe it did, we just can't tell anymore

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#26

Post by pjc50 »

_bfhp wrote: post #10

I never finished 1984 but both seem to ignore the ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism and consumerism that continues to rule the world, money and capitalism. In 1984, or at least this comic, power and violence seems to happen for their own sake, "power corrupting power", and similarly for Huxley's hedonism. The comic claims "Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to pas…

Orwell's book was entirely about state power; it was a parody of Stalinism. He was in the awkward position of being a socialist who'd been shot at by hardline communists during the Spanish civil war, and wanted to warn the left that Stalinism was really dangerous and should not be associated with.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#27

Post by dingfeng_quek »

mercer wrote: post #24

So here's a question that has been on my mind for a while. I regularly read articles on some aspect of our society that is distressing. Articles such as this one, as well as articles on 'consuming devices killing creativity', 'bite-sized articles keeping us from reading bigger material like books', 'our school system turning us into automatons', and so on. While I find myself agreeing with some of these articles base…

Here's a partial answer: You gain some, you lose some, but in different things. There's a tradeoff, e.g. automatons can do things a lot faster/cheaper, at the expense of "creativity". The nature of society changes in a multi-dimensional way, so it's hard to say whether it has become more or less "mindless".

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#29

Post by cooop »

Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931. Is anyone aware of the technologies or behaviours at the time that inspired the novel?

I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that culture was very different then and have been always been curious as to how he came to his prediction.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#30

Post by gtirloni »

mercer wrote: post #24

So here's a question that has been on my mind for a while. I regularly read articles on some aspect of our society that is distressing. Articles such as this one, as well as articles on 'consuming devices killing creativity', 'bite-sized articles keeping us from reading bigger material like books', 'our school system turning us into automatons', and so on. While I find myself agreeing with some of these articles base…

If you think only about creating content, I think you have a very good argument. Historically, not everybody was fit/interested in creating.

However, the underlying theme in these books seems to be one of freedom and our destiny. I don't think they focus much on creation but more on assessing reality and being able to change it.

In the past, at least in my 3rd world country, people were much more interesting in politics, health, education, etc. Nowadays, most people are happy to be distracted so I fully agree with the author here. Over and over, political scandals abound, corruption is everywhere and made plain clear to anyone who wants to see it.. yet, I don't see anyone complaining as they did in the past. It seems we've reached a plateau and we're comfortable enough. Distracted enough perhaps.

Perhaps the potential to create has kept the same, not very high, lots of wasted potential. But the potential to be angry/worried about things that matter seems to be going down the toilet lately. Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA scandal.

Post reply on HN