31–40 of 126 posts
What is the solution of this quandary?
I surely think a lot of popular culture is stupid/a waste of time, but as long as I (and others) have the freedom to freely chose more "fruitful" things to do with our time - then what's the big deal?
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…
They are problems for those who think of nations as teams locked in a giant competition, always striving to one-up each other. On another level we have corporations doing much the same thing. It's a rude mêlée and the stakes are very, very high.
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…
Yes. They would probably have to work more to feed themselves, which is also wasted time. The world requires some sisyphean work from everybody, like doing the dishes, but this is increasingly automated.
"All these people mindlessly consuming memes on their devices could be creating something new instead. That's wasted potential. "
At the same time, someone is creating the memes. That's a creative process, as easy as it is today, some of them are irrelevant, some are slightly more involved.
"All these people reading bite-sized articles could be reading meatier material instead."
Yes, I personally try to vary, I think the bite-size material has a role as well.
I have problems with this.
In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where does that come from here? The past? Your imagination? Do you 'miss' the olden days of constant strife, peril, religion that moulded those who survived into wise old men and women, their minds enriched by the fullness of life, but their bodies cold, wet, and illness-ridden from the lack of modern technology? Perhaps you miss the 'community' vibe of the 1950's. Or your own childhood. Or perhaps you dream of your own utopia. Am I close?
I hope the point made in the above paragraph is self evident, but in case it's not, ask yourself how many of your alternative realities you've actually experienced, and how many are just ideas you've accrued with the blanks liberally filled in by educated guesses and imaginations. Try and find one that isn't. Got one? Good.
Now let's plan. How would you - or anyone - transform the whole of society from what we have today to your new utopia? Plan it out. Perhaps government has to do something. Perhaps government has to go. You're almost certainly going to face dissent - perhaps some people need to face some hard realities for a short time, you know, in the transition period. Think like this for a while. I don't think it will be long before 1984 starts to take shape.
Let's categorise society. Let's construct a hypothetical index in our minds that tracks intelligence/education/income in a single number (the actual equation isn't relevant). Assume it's normally distributed[0]. Let's also assume that the kind of person who sympathises with the article in this link is in the top 25% (far right quarter), so put yourself up there. Let's consider the bottom 55% - the kind of people whose chief pleasures in our Brave New World may be TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect spelling in text messages, Facebook, Instagram, Candy Crush, etc. - they're not massively intellectual.
Where exactly do these people (who I posit construct the majority of our actual society) fit in to your new utopia, assuming you managed the transition without creating 1984? Are they suddenly reading books, in a newfound passion for learning? Maybe they accept their place in their world, respectfully keeping quiet in reverence to their overlords, the intelligensia. Can you fit them in anywhere whilst maintaining the utopia?
This thought experiment should be difficult by this point. I say it's impossible.
If you are not in the bottom 55% of our hypothetical index, there is a great wealth of things out there to please you. Almost all activities are in reach of the average person now. You have books, the ability to travel, the internet, base jumping, mountaineering, arctic exploration, even space travel is expected to be affordable within most of our lifespans. You probably know this already, I guess you're probably happy enough with your own life and world. The discomfort you feel is with the rest of us 'out there', right?
Society is reflective of its components. People will seek to maximise happiness and pleasure under given constraints. This has always been and will always be so. It is the essence of humanity. The simple truth is that the industrial and technical revolutions of late have loosened those constraints by many orders of magnitude, and now instead of dog-fighting, back-room card games, duels, 24-hour boozing, or whatever it was the bottom 55% used to do 'back in the day', they have other things. Like you, they are who they are: a conflagration of nature/nurture forces that amount to a personality.
The difference is that instead of making use of all things available in the world to please you, you've chosen to spend your time sat on your high horse looking down on them, wishing they were different, so that the view from up there was a little nicer.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionMuch deeper and scarier than you'd expect given the setting.
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…
And a creator in today's world can waste much more potential than a common man.
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 polit…
I've been thinking about this too, but I can't help but wonder if the higher interest in "politics, health, education, etc." wasn't just mindless distraction in disguise. I grew up in a developing nation where it appeared that people were more engaged with these sorts of things, but it every discussion could be appended with '...but hey, that's the way it is'.
There are periods in time where a society is more engaged as a whole, and there are subsections of society that are, among other things politically engaged. Of course. But I truly wonder how different all that 'reading the papers and discussing politics' actually is from 'looking at funny political memes and reading short blog entries on what's wrong with the world'.
> Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA scandal.
That is a good point. But have we historically really done much better in this regard (other than some 'flare-ups' like the sixties)?
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.
What made Brave New World far more interesting to me than 1984 is that the bad guys in 1984 are really clearly bad guys who hide behind an impossibly thin veneer of public mindedness in order to live exactly as grandly as they want whereas in Brave New World the man at the top truly believes that he is a force for good in the world. His life is not a selfish one, not in the same way, he just believes that most people…
Huxley presented a future in which the ruling class knows what the lower classes need to be happy, and set that up nicely. Everyone wins!
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
The problem is that intelligence and creativity are a threat to the 'elite' at the top of society in terms of power and wealth - society has been designed to subjugate as many people as possible with Huxley-esque triviality for fear that if people started using their brains that power and wealth would no longer be in the hands of a few. Everyone would be a bit more equal if instead of sitting down to watch the latest Hollywood movie or listen to whatever reality star's new album we sat down and painted a picture or talked about philosophy - there would be no money flowing towards the rich any more.