Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Generation of Idiots?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:00:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://cheezburger.com...

Have Einstein's fears been realized?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:25:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:00:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
http://cheezburger.com...

Have Einstein's fears been realized?

To a large extent yes but they are still in the midst of being realized. At an alarmingly fast pace I might add. It's particularly evident with smartphones and how people who have them tend never to put them down, always finding a way to be preoccupied with the device even when they're "interacting" (or supposed to be) with family and friends. And what is the proposed solution? More, faster, better technology, of course, cuz that's progress and who doesn't like progress?! I find it interesting that though Einstein was known as a scientist, he had so much to say about humanity, progress, morality, war, and so on. Interesting topic, curious that it's not in technology or society but who cares. I'll come back to this and share some thoughts when it's not 5:30 in the morning.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:05:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I had an ex-GF that was a cell-phone-aholic, and she had antisocial personality disorder something fierce. It seems to me that our technology is causing some severe social problems that we have as of yet completely failed to recognize. In fact, it could be the case that just about every ailment of every kind (subtracting a select few) are some-how traced back to a cause that is technologically based. Consider what the wide-spread use of antibiotics and hand-sanitizer has on our immune systems. Or what cars and desk-jobs do to our muscular and skeletal systems.

Socially-speaking, we are becoming increasingly isolated as technology progresses. We are creating new disorders like anti-social, anorexia/bulimia, PTSD, ADHD, a host of phobias, obesity... I guess the question becomes "what disorders AREN'T a function of technology?"
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 12:50:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.

perhaps we're constantly and mundanely interacting with each other where otherwise we would be reading, writing, hearing lectures and such. perhaps in being so close to each other, and in fear, we're just robbing each other of valuable time playing silly fvcking social games, never sharing anything of value, just keeping in constant retarded contact as some offshoot of primal instinct, horribly twisted. perhaps this is what einstein was talking about considering technology's surpassing of human interaction. perhaps we've sold out to the text message. in fairness, most people are utterly retarded and seem content to stay that way so long as some other retard will talk to them. this is why the good looking are dumb. and then technology is not limited to communication.
signature
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 12:58:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My aunt sent this to me in a chain email once.
Source for the quote please.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 1:09:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Oh I can see it now. That's weird. Maybe because I was connected to college Wi-Fi. I don't know :/


Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.

Additionally, "technology" is such a broad stroke. What kinds of technology? For what purpose? Current studies show that Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) helps those with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Social Anxiety. If you Google it you will find some.
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 1:14:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:05:23 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

Socially-speaking, we are becoming increasingly isolated as technology progresses. We are creating new disorders like anti-social, anorexia/bulimia, PTSD, ADHD, a host of phobias, obesity... I guess the question becomes "what disorders AREN'T a function of technology?"

How did technology create any of those? (I'm especially curious as to how PTSD is a function of technology)
yang.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 5:39:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Einstein was a smart chap when it came to sciences, but when it came to society, he rarely had anything correct to say.

His usage of the word "technology" is too broad. Modern day technology is useful in facilitating the greater efficiency of doing X and Y, rather than doing X and Y for humans. For example, communications allows individuals to communicate more effectively, but it doesn't actually replace the message. All this does is it makes humans more apt to do other more productive activities instead of functionally useless tasks such as delivering letters via ships from one country to another- as was before modern communications. It's virtually impossible that a piece of technology would do something less efficient than the individual (for obvious economic reasons), thus meaning that all technology does is make our world more efficient, all the while freeing up human capital resources to be used in more productive areas that facilitate the advancement of mankind.

So if anything, the day that technology surpasses human interaction (whatever the fvck that means), we will be a more efficient and productive race.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 5:47:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
mathematical intelligence and every other sort of intelligence pretty much go hand in hand. humans are pattern finders. that pretty much defines our intelligence. i think the dude was an absolute genius in every regard and have also never met anyone more mathematically adroit than myself. or at least not as regards raw intelligence anyway :P and i know that's an appeal to authority, but... yeah, it's hopeless. whatever. i'm setting up a band of robbers, anyone want in?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 5:48:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 5:39:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Einstein was a smart chap when it came to sciences, but when it came to society, he rarely had anything correct to say.

roylatham said this exact same thing before. dude's dumb. quite simply. what else can i say?
signature
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 5:51:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 5:47:28 PM, badger wrote:
mathematical intelligence and every other sort of intelligence pretty much go hand in hand. humans are pattern finders. that pretty much defines our intelligence. i think the dude was an absolute genius in every regard and have also never met anyone more mathematically adroit than myself. or at least not as regards raw intelligence anyway :P and i know that's an appeal to authority, but... yeah, it's hopeless. whatever. i'm setting up a band of robbers, anyone want in?

I'd like to see you find the smartest mathematician alive and place him in the centre of a party to test his social intelligence. We'll see how well he does.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 9:54:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.

It's not easy speaking out about technology while using the internet... and all this time I THOUGHT MY DDO POSTS WERE CHANGING THE WORLD
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 10:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 1:09:44 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Oh I can see it now. That's weird. Maybe because I was connected to college Wi-Fi. I don't know :/


Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.

Additionally, "technology" is such a broad stroke. What kinds of technology? For what purpose? Current studies show that Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) helps those with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Social Anxiety. If you Google it you will find some.

Just because there are positive uses for tech doesn't mean we should saturate every aspect of our lives with it. I would broaden "technology" out ever further to include the human idea of "progress." Yesterday I was walking my dog, and a person in my neighborhood was coming towards me with her dog so she crossed the street so to avoid any possible complications with our dogs sniffing each other. I was troubled by the fact that this sort of behavior is quite acceptable as the norm. We have technologically isolated ourselves from each other. Our dogs are not to sniff each other, our neighbors are not to talk to each other, and if you show up at my house you had better have made arrangements through your personal communication device before-hand. Previous decades were not like this at all. In the 80s I used to just let my dog out and it roamed the neighborhood with other dogs. I would see it while I was out with my friends and we'd be like hey! and hang out, meeting back later at the house for supper. Nowadays dogs get locked in kennels (or if they're lucky, the house) all day long and if they're lucky they will get a walk around the block for 7 or 8 minutes. People would be hanging out all over the neighborhood and stopping by someone's house uninvited was the norm. People nowadays just suck. They are always thumbing in their phone because it takes more mental energy to interact F2F with the people around them. I feel bad MAJORLY for you teenagers who never knew anything different than this. You talk about "freedom" as this theoretical construct but don't know it at all.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 10:14:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:58:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
My aunt sent this to me in a chain email once.
Source for the quote please.

Um... Einstein? I think I got it from memebase.com lol
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 10:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 1:14:23 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:05:23 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

Socially-speaking, we are becoming increasingly isolated as technology progresses. We are creating new disorders like anti-social, anorexia/bulimia, PTSD, ADHD, a host of phobias, obesity... I guess the question becomes "what disorders AREN'T a function of technology?"

How did technology create any of those? (I'm especially curious as to how PTSD is a function of technology)

PTSD, like diabetes, is a condition which is not inherently based on technology but is increased by the prevalence of it. For instance, take this guys with the 1,000 yard stare: http://www.google.com... Mixing technology with warfare definitely increases its intensity.

Giving you the exact causes of these conditions is difficult, but I can give lots of examples of how certain aspects of our technologically-enhanced culture promotes them. Bulimia is about as old as I am. Pop-culture entertainment, combined with a television to deliver the message into everyone's home, distorts our ideas of what we're supposed to look like. Video killed the radio star...

Diabetes is pretty easily attributable to foods that are technologically-derived as opposed to natural. You don't get obese and diabetic by growing crops and eating animal meat. You get it from refined foods containing lots of sugar.

I believe anti-social personality disorder is also technology-induced, and it is indeed on the rise in our country. There is only speculation at this point, but I believe my principles put me ahead of the scientific curve on this one. Simply put, technology puts us in the position to use others more as means to our own ends. People become just numbers... take DDO for example. What am I to you? Your neighbor? Your friend? Your emotional support? Do I help you take out your garbage or bake you a cake for your birthday? No, I am just a name and an avatar. You can agree with me or argue with me, tell me you love me or flame me and it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way. While this type of interaction is designed only as a supplement, IOWs intended to just be additional to all our normal healthy interpersonal interactions, in practice this ends up being more of a replacement than anything else. The same way a cellphone replaces your conversation with someone else in line or on the bus, and the same way in which your neighborhood, once a seething cauldron of social interaction, is now a cold and desolate desert of isolated households that have very little to do with each other. I bought a house in a pretty good neighborhood in March and there were no fruitcakes coming to my door from the neighbors!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 11:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 5:39:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Einstein was a smart chap when it came to sciences, but when it came to society, he rarely had anything correct to say.

His usage of the word "technology" is too broad. Modern day technology is useful in facilitating the greater efficiency of doing X and Y, rather than doing X and Y for humans. For example, communications allows individuals to communicate more effectively, but it doesn't actually replace the message. All this does is it makes humans more apt to do other more productive activities instead of functionally useless tasks such as delivering letters via ships from one country to another- as was before modern communications. It's virtually impossible that a piece of technology would do something less efficient than the individual (for obvious economic reasons), thus meaning that all technology does is make our world more efficient, all the while freeing up human capital resources to be used in more productive areas that facilitate the advancement of mankind.

In theory, it just increases our abilities. It is a supplement. I can now do x, y, and z because I saved time doing something with technology. But in practice, this just isn't the case. Consider Disney's Magic Highway from the 50s: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8jZtwRJnRs They are so excited about how much more leisure-time that we are going to have, that they can barely figure out just what we are going to do with ourselves. And what happened? We now have less time than ever. We work more jobs, we spend more time on the road, less time with our children... What you said is exactly 180 degrees away from the truth. Every time we push forward with something more convenient and sophisticated, we end up saving ourselves x amount of minutes while adding x+1 minutes in extra work. And why would it be any other way? Roy tells us we are going to have computers in everything in the future (agreeing with Michio) because of Moore's law. Who's going to make all these computers in our wallpaper, refrigerator, car, etc? Machines? Who's going to make those machines? Every time we make more machines, we create another vast network of production, administration, maintenance... even insurance. As more jobs are necessary for these machines, we end up working more for less. That's why a guy could pay cash for his home 50 years ago while the wife stayed home with the kids, and now both parents have to work 3 jobs between the two of them just to survive paycheck to paycheck while people in daycares raise our children so we can do more "important" things.

So if anything, the day that technology surpasses human interaction (whatever the fvck that means), we will be a more efficient and productive race.

Agreed. But efficient and productive are not good ends in and of themselves. We produce so much worthless sh!t these days that we have little time to do anything more than work.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 1:01:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sorry in advance for the length. This is just a really interesting/pertinent topic.

So. I think it's a little more complicated than that. As this paper's second section suggests [http://www.parrhesiajournal.org...], technology is not an exteriority which attaches itself to us after we've established our identity as a species; rather, its evolution coincides essentially with our own. Technologies like agriculture, for example, have drastically affected the direction of evolution. The same is true for social technologies like the state or the market. So, in the first analysis, I reject the notion that technology is "making us idiots", because I reject the underlying principle according to which technology is assumed to be ontologically (and temporally) distinct from "human nature".

In the second analysis, I think it's therefore somewhat difficult to identify technology as a unique cause for social isolation. If it is true that technological development is coincident with human evolution (to say nothing of other species' tool use), I suspect the growth of technologically-mediated communication may be as much an effect as a cause. While technology may, for instance, be somewhat to blame for giving us outlets through which one may exert minimal time and effort to communicate, one may just as easily point to the dangerous pervasiveness of socioeconomic utilitarianism for encouraging communicative efficiency (where efficiency is understood as a force eschewing sincerity and connection for the sake of convenience and clarity).

Still, I agree with the thesis that our outsourcing of social functions to technology is probably retarding our interpersonal skills. If you've ever spent several days alone writing papers, playing video games, etc., you may notice some residual strangeness when trying to reconnect with people in the real world. I think the effect is amplified for this most recent generation, which grew up under the social technology curve--they never knew anything different. As such, I think the mediation of communication by social technology--by presenting an entirely verbal form of interaction--inhibits their ability to function in a live social environment to the extent that they fail to learn nonverbal communicative techniques (e.g., body language, intonation). The pop-cultural preoccupation with "awkwardness" is instructive here.

Also useful, I think, is Debord's understanding of the society of the spectacle [http://library.nothingness.org...], an arrangement in which social interaction is inverted, replacing human interaction with the interaction of commodities relative to a population of passive consumers (arguably fitting the archetype of the isolated technophile). On the one hand, technologies of convenience--online shopping, online food delivery, pornography--put us in a position to avoid human interaction to an alarming degree. If you have a job and income, you can otherwise sit at home all day and get almost anything you need. You can get information, food, consumer goods, romance, sex, etc. And it's all just a few clicks and keystrokes away.

These are supplemented, on the other hand, by spectacular communication: as Rob noted, we interact very little as humans; instead, technologically-mediated communication functions as the interaction of disembodied information--names, avatars, profile stats, dates, times, text, post counts. If we reach the singularity, I suspect the post-human future will not turn out to be a glorious overcoming; rather, it could produce a paralyzing indigence, either through anesthetizing stimulation or a Surrogates-style technological domination of the human. The mundane nullity of a life merely undergone, rather than experienced, to which the routines of the average white-collar worker or frustrated laborer gesture, attests to this threat.

But, in the last analysis, maybe this isn't so awful. There are two things to consider: first, given that technology is internal to human development, rather than an external entity to be utilized or rejected, any human experience to which we may be receptive must be, at least in part, an experience of technology. As with politics, however, an openness to technological experience is necessarily accompanied by a warning about the atrocities of which we are capable (as Hannah Arendt noted with respect to the social and the political). As much as we are capable of confronting oppression wherever we find it, we are also capable of domination and genocide in the style of the 20th century totalitarian states. As much as we are capable of genuine communication and accessing the joy of being with others, we are also capable of mundanity and isolation.

Second, on my account, an experience of nihilism is ultimately necessary to pave the way for rethinking our belonging with the rest of the world. Rather than attempting to return to some nostalgic sense of a long-gone past (potentially a product of "rosy retrospection" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]), I suggest stepping forward in a manner that takes us "back" to an infantile confrontation with language, the first and most primitive technology through which we constitute ourselves and experience each other. This, however, is impossible if we already have some idealized notion of communication defined by heavily-romanticized traditions. As Agamben notes in a chapter on acedia [http://books.google.com...] ("sloth" in its original context, rather than as just a synonym for laziness), "it can be said of acedia that 'the greatest disgrace is never to have had it.'" I suggest the same may be true of the melancholic indifference--perhaps revulsion--toward communication inspired by (and inspiring) these technologies. The conceptual proximity between the seeming emptiness of contemporary modes of communication and the similar hollowness of the whole modern routine-life is likely not accidental.

I think, ultimately, we have to continually return to confront language as a cornerstone of human experience insofar as we acknowledge the potential for destruction of communication through both reduction by technology (and utility) to pure text, and the substitution of human interaction with the interaction of the data made to stand in our place.
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 5:39:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:00:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
http://cheezburger.com...

Have Einstein's fears been realized?

lol, no. An average person is far more open-minded than an average person from the 19th century, for example.

Are you serious?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 10:58:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think you explored the topic well, Cody... The synthetic style made my rebuttals fairly redundant. At any rate, I believe technology gives us good things, but we haven't mastered how to control it yet. If you have a high-tech solution to something, then ask yourself: "do I really NEED a high-tech solution to this issue?" Technology comes at a price: a drain on resources, pollution in the environment, and the need for maintenance.

There is a human element that is lost, as well, which is what Einstein was alluding to. We are becoming highly-specialized in our productive abilities, making us ignorant of the grander scheme of things. We are more skilled in narrow areas, but much less skilled in broader areas. Most people can't cook, sew, farm, etc. But Joe can process an insurance claim like nobody's business...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 10:59:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 5:39:18 AM, WW wrote:
At 11/22/2012 4:00:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
http://cheezburger.com...

Have Einstein's fears been realized?

lol, no. An average person is far more open-minded than an average person from the 19th century, for example.

I reject that claim.

Are you serious?

As a heart-attack.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 12:35:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ah, sorry, just saw this.

At 11/23/2012 10:13:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

Just because there are positive uses for tech doesn't mean we should saturate every aspect of our lives with it.

I agree.

I would broaden "technology" out ever further to include the human idea of "progress." Yesterday I was walking my dog, and a person in my neighborhood was coming towards me with her dog so she crossed the street so to avoid any possible complications with our dogs sniffing each other.

LOL Oh man... that's funny. Maybe she was in a hurry or something. But yeah, I get what you're saying.

I was troubled by the fact that this sort of behavior is quite acceptable as the norm. We have technologically isolated ourselves from each other. Our dogs are not to sniff each other, our neighbors are not to talk to each other, and if you show up at my house you had better have made arrangements through your personal communication device before-hand. Previous decades were not like this at all. In the 80s I used to just let my dog out and it roamed the neighborhood with other dogs.

The problem is now you can't trust people. "Back in the day" it was likely that neighbouhoods were smaller, less populated, kids could run around in the street and come home at 9pm. Now there's the threat of your child being kidnapped, hit by a car, what have you. It's hard to disentangle other reasons for people becoming depersonalized (like population growth) from technology.

I would see it while I was out with my friends and we'd be like hey! and hang out, meeting back later at the house for supper. Nowadays dogs get locked in kennels (or if they're lucky, the house) all day long and if they're lucky they will get a walk around the block for 7 or 8 minutes. People would be hanging out all over the neighborhood and stopping by someone's house uninvited was the norm. People nowadays just suck. They are always thumbing in their phone because it takes more mental energy to interact F2F with the people around them. I feel bad MAJORLY for you teenagers who never knew anything different than this. You talk about "freedom" as this theoretical construct but don't know it at all.

I
yang.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 12:50:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 10:59:48 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/25/2012 5:39:18 AM, WW wrote:
At 11/22/2012 4:00:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
http://cheezburger.com...

Have Einstein's fears been realized?

lol, no. An average person is far more open-minded than an average person from the 19th century, for example.

I reject that claim.

Why?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 10:09:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 10:13:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/22/2012 1:09:44 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:58:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:27:28 AM, tulle wrote:
I can't view the video? (Possibly because of my OS) Can you post a summary?

There is no video, just a picture of Einstein with a caption that say "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein.

Oh I can see it now. That's weird. Maybe because I was connected to college Wi-Fi. I don't know :/


Of course one can argue that we use much of this technology for our interaction (we are interacting with each other, where without technology we would not be). And if the OP claims that the quality of the interaction is nothing compared to face to face, then he is basically calling himself an idiot since this is the interaction type that he is using.

Additionally, "technology" is such a broad stroke. What kinds of technology? For what purpose? Current studies show that Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) helps those with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Social Anxiety. If you Google it you will find some.

Just because there are positive uses for tech doesn't mean we should saturate every aspect of our lives with it. I would broaden "technology" out ever further to include the human idea of "progress." Yesterday I was walking my dog, and a person in my neighborhood was coming towards me with her dog so she crossed the street so to avoid any possible complications with our dogs sniffing each other. I was troubled by the fact that this sort of behavior is quite acceptable as the norm. We have technologically isolated ourselves from each other. Our dogs are not to sniff each other, our neighbors are not to talk to each other, and if you show up at my house you had better have made arrangements through your personal communication device before-hand. Previous decades were not like this at all. In the 80s I used to just let my dog out and it roamed the neighborhood with other dogs. I would see it while I was out with my friends and we'd be like hey! and hang out, meeting back later at the house for supper. Nowadays dogs get locked in kennels (or if they're lucky, the house) all day long and if they're lucky they will get a walk around the block for 7 or 8 minutes. People would be hanging out all over the neighborhood and stopping by someone's house uninvited was the norm. People nowadays just suck. They are always thumbing in their phone because it takes more mental energy to interact F2F with the people around them. I feel bad MAJORLY for you teenagers who never knew anything different than this. You talk about "freedom" as this theoretical construct but don't know it at all.

I understand: Even My school is into it

CONGRATULATIONS! EVERYONE IN THE SCHOOL NOW USES LAPTOPS FOR EVERYTHING! HOORAY!

I can send you a link if you want of my school.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!