If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   In the midst of increased connectivity, are we becoming more disconnected from one another - and ourselves?   (npr.org) divider line 72
    More: Obvious, Swarthmore College, Sherry Turkle, Chronicle of Higher Education  
•       •       •

2425 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2014 at 2:35 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 07:52:50 AM

manimal2878: My wide made me be here?


ummmm, Freudian?

/she gonna be maaaaaaad
 
2014-02-12 08:03:23 AM
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

 4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
 
2014-02-12 08:07:14 AM

the801: 1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

 4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.


Are you trolling?  Please tell me you are trolling.

Life pre-industrial revolution was awfully horrible.
 
2014-02-12 08:10:08 AM

Jim_Callahan: Lapdance: My version of Disconnected:

Kitchen Phone Rings - "Who the Hell is Bothering me Now!"

Yeah, a phone that has Wires! It has an Answering Machine in it. If I'm not home, guess what, Tough!

We're all very happy for you that you have a job low enough on the social/income ladder that it never involves being on call, and somewhat sad for you that you don't have enough friends to justify being on the same communications regime as the rest of the world.

The rest of us pretty much need a cell in order to function in the modern world.  Good job on somehow turning being poor and/or poorly prepared to deal with basic life challenges into something to brag about, though, I'm sure that'll do well by you as soon as you manage to find some hipsters that are also octogenarians for your social circle.  I recommend learning checkers.


4.bp.blogspot.com
' 'Bout a nine on the tension scale there, Reub.' ;b
 
2014-02-12 08:11:08 AM
51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

---

i wonder what that guy would say about life these days. i think i'll write him a letter and ask.
 
2014-02-12 08:24:49 AM
Fark_Guy_Rob:
Life pre-industrial revolution was awfully horrible.


And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches.

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
 
2014-02-12 08:30:39 AM
Old news is old. Really old..... like, are they really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now?
 
2014-02-12 08:33:57 AM
I'm gonna blow your minds, but there has ALWAYS been someone who isn't having fun, or doesn't belong at the party, or can't keep their attention focused. Now they just have an obvious "tell."

There is nothing new about this, we're not becoming this or that.
 
2014-02-12 09:10:06 AM

the801: 4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.


There are 7 billion people on this planet. Going back to an Agrarian society would most like kill at least half of them without industrialized agriculture (see "Green Revolution").

Seems really cruel.
 
2014-02-12 09:23:51 AM

the801: 51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.


Nobody cares about your THX-1138 fan fiction.
 
2014-02-12 09:28:07 AM

Jim_Callahan: Lapdance: My version of Disconnected:

Kitchen Phone Rings - "Who the Hell is Bothering me Now!"

Yeah, a phone that has Wires! It has an Answering Machine in it. If I'm not home, guess what, Tough!

We're all very happy for you that you have a job low enough on the social/income ladder that it never involves being on call, and somewhat sad for you that you don't have enough friends to justify being on the same communications regime as the rest of the world.

The rest of us pretty much need a cell in order to function in the modern world.  Good job on somehow turning being poor and/or poorly prepared to deal with basic life challenges into something to brag about, though, I'm sure that'll do well by you as soon as you manage to find some hipsters that are also octogenarians for your social circle.  I recommend learning checkers.


Nice troll, in general. As a successful engineer, I got well into six figures without a mobile phone. A few years into smartphones, they finally had enough to offer that I decided it was time.

At least I'm not a prick though.
 
kab
2014-02-12 09:44:19 AM
Connectivity can be a great substitute for self absorption.   Which is exactly why people gravitate towards it.
 
2014-02-12 09:58:24 AM
No. The answer is no.
 
2014-02-12 10:10:01 AM
I doubt we're all becoming more disconnected. In the example of all the people sitting at the train station looking at their phones, I doubt you would see much interaction even without them. Most people would be staring off into space, reading a book, listening to music, or talking to someone if they were traveling together. This wouldn't be any different with phones/tablets.

It's like people complaining for reading with a tablet but somehow a newspaper is ok. Either way you're ignoring the world.

Now people who text or Facebook constantly when you're going out to eat... fark 'em
 
2014-02-12 10:37:57 AM

dragonchild: <strong><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8139093/89228293#c89228293" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</strong> <em>Sorry, but most of the people you interact with on a daily basis are farking boring. It's not their fault they can't bring up something your interested in talking about in 0.1 seconds. Most likley they don't have the right answer to your question anyway because the data was never crawled and returns 404. Real world relationships will be more about sustaining your non real world life as we move forward.</em>

I see your point, but careful where you're pointing that finger.  I've seen situations where people were absolutely <em>surrounded</em> with stimuli and were bored for <em>lack of effort</em>.  Case in point:  The library.  Most people say "it's boring", which is the most preposterous thing to say in such a place.  Now, I'm not a library-going sort -- I think I once read a book back in 1988 -- but even I know that all the entertainment is sitting on the shelves and <em>that's what it's there for</em>.  And last time I went to the library, it didn't take me much time to find a book to pass the time.  Unless you're brain-dead, odds are at least one book should pique your interest, but people are really expecting to be entertained, like a stripper-cake is just going to roll in because you're there.

That said, you are right.  Most people are boring, and technology hasn't changed that -- it's just made it more apparent.  I worked in a sales office in a prior gig; outside sales more than any other job still goes with good old-fashioned wining-and-dining whenever they can but holy smeg, outside of business it's always the same three conversations at a goddamn steakhouse.  These people are taking the effort to be around each other even after all the customer meetings are done for the day and I'd <em>much</em> rather be at home playing video games.  Not to mention, i ...


I agree, but I think some people would find a library more entertaining than your average person. Another observation is seeing people skim through magazines in a crowded waiting room, so they don't have to deal with howdy neighbor types. The guy with a angry face skimming through Woman's Day is probably the most interesting peson in the room. In real life you feel obligated to answer someone next to you. Online not so much.

It's why I like places like fark. if I reply to someone I don't expect a reply back. I move along unaffected and continue being smug.
 
2014-02-12 10:39:39 AM
Kerpal: Now people who text or Facebook constantly when you're going out to eat... fark 'em

My favorite cure for that is waiting 3 seconds after conversation stops because they're staring at their phone and yelling

GET YOUR GODDAM FACE OUT OF THAT PHONE

/highly entertaining
 
2014-02-12 10:46:01 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-12 11:47:23 AM
Is it time to trot this tired weaksause out again for the world to say, "Oh, hey, good point" before continuing on with a life less interrupted by by tired weaksauce?  No?  It's not?  Well...damn
 
2014-02-12 11:59:33 AM
Geez! There's a whole lot of ramifications to that theory which could be explored more.

Humans tend to be a herding animal, liking groups physically within range. Social contact for the majority is a necessity. That might explain a segment of the popularity of Facebook -- something I don't grasp much at all. Then there's texting -- which I suspect might be an alternative to face to face conversation since you can't actually see or hear if the other person is being sarcastic along with a lot of other physical cues which can make one uncomfortable in a face to face encounter.

The indicator in texting was simple to define: voce contact was more expensive than texting, requiring less bandwidth. Texting was cheaper, requiring less, yet the cell companies charged you more for using it than voice. Early on they noticed the propensity among the younger generation to increasingly use that form of communication.

Texting is a version of the old AOL Instant Messaging, which did not catch on as quickly or as well as Texting.

As things change, people also grow unhappy with their loss of control over their immediate environment. That pretty park they used to like to go to and chat is now infested with homeless folks, traffic around it has increased because the local population has boomed, scattered garbage among the wild flowers is annoying and too many other folks insist on sitting in their cars with crappy music booming from oversized speakers.

So, they now talk from other places, often separated by miles.

However, a big part of the human psych depends on physical touch. Shaking hands, clapping someone on the shoulder, a peck on the cheek, leaning against each other, helping one up from a fall, walking arm in arm, just a light touch to the arm of someone not feeling well, hugs and so on.

Modern technology decreases a large percentage of such contact, unless you have a group of trusted friends you encounter daily or family.
(Want to know what happens when touch is reduced to almost nothing? Spend a year without touching anyone or anyone touching you. No sex. No kissing. No hugs. Tell me about how you've changed afterwards.)

So, there are assorted areas which could still need to be investigated to round out the theory more.
 
2014-02-12 11:59:47 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-12 01:10:57 PM
Say that with a straight face to me .. who's on telephone DSL

Go ahead, I dare you
 
2014-02-12 01:55:40 PM
Yes
 
Displayed 22 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report