Should we stop using computers?

[Soup forgot his password]

This is a serious question with very serious repercussions. I doubt there's anybody else on 12oz quite so wired-in than me. My first computer was a Macintosh LC-III in 1993 when I was seven years old. After that my family bought a Macinosh Performa, which as a child I used frequently. One of my uncles helped run a company called Club KidSoft, which was designed to help parents overcome their fears of letting children use computers. KidSoft predates household internet, so they offered magazine subscriptions bundled with CD's that had "educational" software on them targeted at children. In junior high I wanted an iMac so bad that my uncle, a history professor at U Michigan, promised to match my savings dollar for dollar. I was a consumer of Apple products at the age of twelve. By fourteen I was working at my uncles graphic design firm, meaning I've been heavily contributing to the superficial aesthetic takeover of the rational typographic American culture for over twelve years.

 

It's not until now, at age 26, that I'm hearing an argument against everything I know and am hopelessly addicted to. I cannot imagine using a library to write a research paper. I wouldnt even know where to start. And yet from now until 2013 I plan on trying to unplug myself.

 

Its important that I do this now, while I still can. Libraries and other physical information sources are dying out, and when that happens we'll have no choice but to use the computer for everything. The computer isnt a cute companion to the written word, it's a replacement, and a crude one at that.

 

Other points I want to make before opening this up to discussion:

 

1. What does the computer and the internet do to our brain? There is substantial neurological evidence to show that it remaps our brains and the way we think, hold information and so on. The question is, is this remapping better or worse than what we had before? Read the book, "The Shallows" for more on this. Also what does the computer do to the way we define truth? Religion defines it as the word of god, or someone almighty and credible. The book defines it as whatever is most-likely true out of a stack of likely arguments. The television defines it by how credible a speaker looks in context with the setting that they speak in—basically a return to religion. Computers defines credibility as whoever has the best SEO and pops up first on google. Im not asking you to agree with this description or think computers are the worst of all the other mediums, I'm just asking you to think about it.

 

2. What does the computer and the internet do to our social life? Read "You are not a gadget," and "Alone Together" for more on that. What happens to our sense of community? Do we still feel part of a community that shares a common land, or do we think community is the same as a "virtual community" which is just a bunch of people with a shared interest? What about families? Are children still allowed to be children or are we giving them all the information and decisions of adults from a young age. Like I said, I was a consumer of computers by 12, should children really be making consumer decisions before adulthood? Is there such a thing as childhood anymore? Read "Building a bridge to the 18th Century" for more on that.

 

 

3. What happens when the computer gains a monopoly on all public discourse? Read all the books by Neil Postman to learn what the book did to public disquisition, and how that was completely destroyed before the 1980's by television. Today the presidential candidacy is no different than the olympics. It would scare the crap out of the rest of the world if they knew we voted for bush because of superficial appearances. He looked and sounded more like the average American, so he won.

 

4. What will our economy look like after the computer takeover? How will we make money if all we do is give away information for free? What will we buy and sell? How many people will make money? How many people will even have jobs? "You Are Not A Gadget" and several other books in the crossfire book thread touch on this.

 

5. What will happen to information on the internet? Google currently indexes only .04% of the internet. We as internet users who only use things we find on google are not even using all of what google indexes. Also think about how everything is all in the same place. If you go on the iTunes Store right now and search for something you want to learn about, it'll give you podcasts, radio, books, movies, tv shows, songs, and more, bur are all of these things really equal? Think about what the television did to sports. No longer were sports something you paid to go to, and only the people in the seats were the people who experienced it. Sports became something you watched. Sports fans became anybody who purchased a hat online.

 

I'm likely going to relapse from time to time, check my email and read this thread as it grows, so I'll contribute where I can, but please, read all the books in the crossfire book thread. Keep that thread going. This thread is so important to your future, your social life, your love life, your government, your city, your economy, your job, your health, and everything else that it must be taken seriously by all users on the internet.

 

We are all part of this virtual community that is the internet. If we're not discussing these things and deciding for ourselves then someone else controls the master switch.

[Fist 666]

at this point i plan on being between mostly and completely off the grid within 5 years, for me, absolutely computers will be an occasional thing.

 

globally and as a society it will not happen, not until post WWIII any how.

 

shoulds are always loaded with all sorts of philosophic murk and are rarely worth arguing objectively.

[theprotester]

I feel that the internet is one giant step forward for a global government.

[Soup forgot his password]

Fist I would agree that this is a philosophical question. What is the computer? What is computing? Is it a benefit or a detriment to society? Just remember that our concepts of society, government, democracy, capitalism, are all just philosophies, abstract concepts, that we have decided are more valuable than others.

 

I would add that today computing is becoming another public utility. Computing power in many regards is as general a societal need as electricity and in the future it will be sold just like electricity. No longer will we own computing machines. We will pay for access to a computing grid, just like a power grid, and just like a power grid this means there will be huge monopolies

[PissinACup]

intresting topic and good piece of writing...i will definitely check out some of those books you recommend...now to answer the question or more like state my opinion,"should we stop using computers"?...can we stop ?,i mean about half of america got a facebook or atleast some form of soical network...as far as the one world goverment agenda...that's already in place ...we got this thing called the world wide web keyword "web"...so basically we're already in the new world order as far as being inslave with technology and so forth,but i dont think that computers are a bad thing if you know how to use it which alot of people dont in my humble opinion... computers will be around for as long as i and everyone on 12oz lives...the sad thing is ,is that we are slowy becoming zombies off technology in a strange way...if you was to take a walk outside in a inner city you would see about 90 percent of people stuck to there "smartphone"..unpluging from reality. basically,the computer is like a gift and a curse..because there so much information on the internet that it makes it difficult not to go to it,see when I think computers I think internet,a computer without intternet is like a burgur without cheese...so should "we" stop using computers ?..no i dont think we should stop i just think we should I just think we should regulate are time we spent using the computer if its not for something productive...

[Soup forgot his password]

Fist I'm going to revise my answer. When I say "philosophical" I don't mean that this is a baseless debate floating in the ether of other philosophical debates. I have a lot of facts from which I've inferred that should stop using computers. All industries in America have reduced employment in the last decade. The only industry that hasn't grown or declined is software development. This is because of the automation of fucking everything. In fact all new jobs that have been created since the 1990's have been temp jobs. And all new jobs that have been created since the 2000's have been jobs that can be easily automated by computers. The only jobs that we still need humans for are being done free through crowdsourcing. Unemployment will only continue to rise ad infinitum. That's my guarantee.

 

 

Here's a few more things to think about. The internet is rapidly turning into a public utility just like electricity and telephones. In fact you should think of flickr, youtube, skype, google, wordpress, amazon, ebay, facebook whoever made this bulletin board, as internet utilities as well. You need them to do anything on the internet. And just like electricity, soon they will be utilities provided by one giant company, fiber-optically piped into every home from one giant data center.

 

And like a utility you dont have a choice. You cannot run a business or do anything without electricity. You cannot do anything without telephones. Once a culture has become reliant on a technology, you don't have a choice. If you want to be socially and culturally connected to the people around you WILL pay your bills and buy into the grid.

 

So far I've gathered that this means a couple things:

 

1. The personal computer will no longer exist. We will all be using tablets, netbooks, and other devices that connect us to the "cloud." Cloud computing is the future. Just like electricity, economies of scale will take over and the same will happen to computational power. Power plant-like data centers will do all of the computational power at a fraction of the cost. This future is actually a reality today. The only reason why personal computers still exist is because cloud computing is reliant on broadband and fiber optic networks. As soon as the infrastructure goes fiber optic, the personal computer will be dead. In fact, hold onto your PC and don't buy a new one. There's no point.

 

2. Google Glass isnt just a stupid idea, it's an inevitable stupid idea that we will all one day be wearing. Just like facebook has become required to communicate to anyone regardless of distance or relevance to our lives, as all information, all socialization, all politics and business become digitized, we will need to be connected to the internet at all times.

 

 

 

 

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to get out of this economy. I can write up a few worst-case scenarios of how this will end, but here's my favorite and craziest one I've thought of: In the future, the world becomes like the Matrix, except it's ran by google. And instead of people being forced into the Matrix we gladly accept it. Why? Because there are no jobs, people can't afford food or housing. Google promises to plug them into the matrix and feed us nutrients to keep us alive but make that gruel taste like real food. In exchange google is allowed to use our brains for the computational power. Not battery power, brain power. The human brain is far faster per watt than any computer man will ever make. To link them up seamlessly through a cloud network will create the cheapest and most powerful computational device ever conceived.

 

This seems far fetched, but I live very close to Silicon Valley and know a lot of software engineers. I've even met many of original employees of companies like Dropbox and Facebook, including Mr. Zuck. YOu can do your own reading on this too as nobody's really shy about their philosophical beliefs in Silicon Valley. google's engineers and founders all believe in what they call "The Singularity." Where all minds are one. Where the entirety of human information is available instantly to everyone. This scenario, and the "The Singularity" rely on the "Computational theory of Mind" Which believes that the brain is a machine. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's not. Never the less, the human brain has a hard time telling the difference between a real person and siri, or a video game and reality, and reacts similary to both. If in the future virtual reality becomes as convincing as the real world, and real employment is so drastically cut that most people are unable to support themselves, they may turn to a kind of virtual reality for sensory while reducing their lifestyle to as sedentary as possible to make their survival affordable.

 

But why not just go off the grid and live life without electricity? WHy not reduce their expenses that way? As Aristotle put it, humans are civic creatures. We value civilization more than our own lives, so if everyone else is doing it, we will follow them in.

 

I could go on here but this is turning into a TLDR post, a problem that didn't exist before the internet. Another thing to consider I guess.

 

If you want me to provide factual evidence to support my far-fetched conclusion I have heaps of it. And if you agree with me that this is altogether plausible, then another question to ask is what's the problem with living in a virtual simulation of it's all the same? Therein lies why I believe this to be a philosophical discussion. What is life supposed to be? What are the highest values of humanity? And can we attain them by continuing down this digital road?

 

 

And finally this discussion may lead to a discussion about alternative economies that dont involve replacing people with computers or crowdsourcing, respecting craftsmen, not treating people like cogs in a larger machine (A philosophy that was sold to factory owners and the elite back in 1880 when Edison's powergrid was introduced to the world). In turn this economy wouldnt involve menial repetitive labor that humans universally fucking hate, making wives into "housewives" or "home machine engineers" that actually spend MORE time doing house chores, not less—and bettering the relationship between people and their communities and families, not the relationship between people and businesses.

Anyway I'm out.

[Spambot5000]

 

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to get out of this economy. I can write up a few worst-case scenarios of how this will end, but here's my favorite and craziest one I've thought of: In the future, the world becomes like the Matrix, except it's ran by google. And instead of people being forced into the Matrix we gladly accept it. Why? Because there are no jobs, people can't afford food or housing. Google promises to plug them into the matrix and feed us nutrients to keep us alive but make that gruel taste like real food. In exchange google is allowed to use our brains for the computational power. Not battery power, brain power. The human brain is far faster per watt than any computer man will ever make. To link them up seamlessly through a cloud network will create the cheapest and most powerful computational device ever conceived.

 

Oh come on man, this is really corny. You're a smart guy with some legitimate concerns, but your hypothetical is just straight up silly.

 

Also, automation does not simply destroy jobs it opens up space for new economic activity. Human creativity is essentially endless.

[Fist 666]

yeah dude.

i think 'corny' pretty much nailed it.

 

soup i am disappoint.

[Uzzi 9mm]

I dont think we should stop using computers but i do think that we should watch out for smartphone usage.

There has never been such seamless integration of the internet into out lives, how many of you have whipped out your smartphone at the pub to talk about a funny Gif etc?

How many of you check your social media on your smartphone >6 times per day?

How many of you access work eg; eMail, Teamviewer, VNC, Evernote etc outside of work hours on your smartphone?

I know i do all the above and it weirds me out... Its basically fucked that i can get a work call and dial into any number of PCs when im out drinking/relaxing or read emails before i get out of bed.

 

I think you need to balance linear thought and the over stimulation that is the internet, oh and crazy flash and HTML5 ads piss me off to no end.

[Soup forgot his password]

Oh come on man, this is really corny. You're a smart guy with some legitimate concerns, but your hypothetical is just straight up silly.

 

Also, automation does not simply destroy jobs it opens up space for new economic activity. Human creativity is essentially endless.

 

I'm going to stand by that silly hypothetical for the time being and I'll explain why if you just ask.

 

 

Please note that "Opens up space for new economic activity," is not the same as, "does not destroy jobs." The computer hasn't created a single job that couldn't eventually be done by a computer, and ever since the 70's we've seen exactly that economic decline. If you adjust for inflation, the US middle class never made more than they did in the 1970's. And every month for years we've only been recording job losses. Last month alone America lost 1.2 million jobs. If you look at where there's a little job growth, its not in computer/web 2.0 sectors, the industries that are now making all the money. (It's in biotech/pharmaceuticals and other highly specialized science industries that I'll have to talk about in a later post.) Look also at the change of wealth from being widely distributed throughout a middle class labor force, to now only a handful of software developers. When Google Bought YouTube for 1.9 billion dollars, they had 25 employees—and that's average. Some sites only had one employee. (I can name companies if wanted) All these billion dollar companies which you might be calling "new economic activity" are ran by a handful of developers. All new software developers are contractors or consultants that are paid to automate a new system and then let go. Companies, even tech companies like Apple and Verizon, want more automation, not more employees.

 

Now you might be thinking that sure, software development isn't a great place to look for employed, but at least there's indie work there. For how much longer? If you compare the evolution of the internet/computing industry to telegraph services, postage services, telephone services, newspaper services, electricity services, and so on they all follow the same pattern. In the beginning they are lots of little dinosaurs that quickly die out and eventually one big fucking dinosaur takes advantage of economies of scale. Soon after that piece of tech becomes a "utility" that everyone can't live without, rather than what it was originally used for, to give businesses an advantage over other businesses.

 

In the beginning of electricity, each factory bought their own dynamo to supply power, but as Edison set out to create a power-grid that could take advantage of bigger and more efficient dynamos that could produce cheaper kilowatts, companies scrapped their own dynamos for the grid. We're seeing the same thing with personal computing: While the personal computer democratized processing power and hard drive space, they wont be able to compete in the market against netbooks connected to giant data centers with processing power limited only by the speed of fiber optic connections.

 

It's getting TLDR again so I'll pause here. The point is this: Every new technology soon becomes a utility—an added expense to the cost of living—rather than an edge over the rest. This leads to more specialized jobs that require newer and more formalized education. This is why the wealthy parts of America went from sending only 30% of their kids to high-school, to now requiring an undergraduates or a masters to even find employment. What will happen when a PHD is required to find employment? Never-mind what happens to the liberal arts and the original mission statement of colleges, what happens when a doctorates is just a social norm and tuition prices continue to quadruple every decade? If everyone has a doctorates, what possible edge will college even be capable of providing people? What will our value for education be then?

 

 

Fist, just hang in there.

[Spambot5000]

I'm going to stand by that silly hypothetical for the time being and I'll explain why if you just ask.

 

 

Please note that "Opens up space for new economic activity," is not the same as, "does not destroy jobs." The computer hasn't created a single job that couldn't eventually be done by a computer, and ever since the 70's we've seen exactly that economic decline. If you adjust for inflation, the US middle class never made more than they did in the 1970's. And every month for years we've only been recording job losses. Last month alone America lost 1.2 million jobs. If you look at where there's a little job growth, its not in computer/web 2.0 sectors, the industries that are now making all the money. (It's in biotech/pharmaceuticals and other highly specialized science industries that I'll have to talk about in a later post.) Look also at the change of wealth from being widely distributed throughout a middle class labor force, to now only a handful of software developers. When Google Bought YouTube for 1.9 billion dollars, they had 25 employees—and that's average. Some sites only had one employee. (I can name companies if wanted) All these billion dollar companies which you might be calling "new economic activity" are ran by a handful of developers. All new software developers are contractors or consultants that are paid to automate a new system and then let go. Companies, even tech companies like Apple and Verizon, want more automation, not more employees.

 

Now you might be thinking that sure, software development isn't a great place to look for employed, but at least there's indie work there. For how much longer? If you compare the evolution of the internet/computing industry to telegraph services, postage services, telephone services, newspaper services, electricity services, and so on they all follow the same pattern. In the beginning they are lots of little dinosaurs that quickly die out and eventually one big fucking dinosaur takes advantage of economies of scale. Soon after that piece of tech becomes a "utility" that everyone can't live without, rather than what it was originally used for, to give businesses an advantage over other businesses.

 

 

I said automation does not simply destroy jobs for a reason. That being, framing the process of technological innovation and labour redundancy as a process of destruction is hugely myopic considering the outcomes that stem from that automation. For example, that we now have chainsaws instead of chopping trees by axe did not render a large section of the labour force permanently unemployed. Efficiency increased and labour was redirected to other pursuits. In relation to the internet, vast fields of jobs now exist where they did not. Cottage style ebay traders have access to huge markets, media and web designers, code monkeys etc all would not exist in the numbers they do without the internet. To focus on a couple of large companies due to their saturation is poor analysis.

 

 

To talk exclusively about the US economic experience is also a mistake unless you also want to consider US law, regulation and your national position within a global market. The US, like other western countries, has essentially outsourced its labour by pricing themselves out of the market. The US economic experience is not transposable with global market trends.

[Soup forgot his password]

First off I disagree that computers killing jobs is myopic. We're talking about a continuous trend from 1880 to 2012 across Europe the United States and the rest of the world. I focus on the united states because we're the largest consumers of electricity and computers even compared to Europe, therefor the effects of computers and electricity has been and will continue to be felt in America first.

 

And do you have any evidence that the chainsaw didn't reduce employment? The entire purpose of the chainsaw was to increase efficiency, which meant fewer hands were needed, meaning lumbering companies didn't need so many workers for the same output. The chainsaw was created to give one lumberjack or one lumbering company an advantage over the other companies. Soon as everybody has a chainsaw it becomes an obligatory tool for the job rather than something that provides any advantage over a plain old axe. The same goes for your analogy of the internet creating "Cottage style ebay traders have access to huge markets, media and web designers, code monkeys etc" Did those jobs exist before the internet? Yes, and with even more diversity than we have today. Those people had storefronts and serviced a geographical region rather than a virtual community. Those storefronts were all wiped out by economies of scale, which can only exist if automation exists. The internet didnt create more graphic designers, software developers, artists, or whatever you may be referring to as "cottage style ebay traders." We've had software developers since companies have used Turing machines and mainframes. We had more graphic designers before the internet than we do now. Does the internet create more job opportunities for them? No. But just like lumberjacks have to use chainsaws, all small companies have to use the internet. They don't have a choice. The internet for many is the only market left.

 

 

 

Finally I'll pause with this, what's the difference between efficiency and intelligence? Are humans machines? Can google ever be intelligent? Can you ever get the same kind of answers or responses from a search engine that you could get from a person? Can a web store ever replace a store you go into and meet someone? I'm not talking about some giant chain with morons working the floor... I'm talking about the kind of answers you get from a guy who runs a small shop and has a lifetime of experience behind him. When we search for something or buy something online, was that something we really wanted, or are we just pretending it was because it's all that we could find?

[robpetersonq]

Reliable investments

 

Hello! I have recently found a unique company that allows to earn on investment much greater than on investment in bank deposits and in real estate! I have checked it on my own experience, all is working, the income increases, the deposit is increasing by 30% every month! Also I have created a blog money-drives.com where I am sharing with you my experience of working with this company! The main advantages of this company are stability, reliability and a great experience, so for me it is a confidence in the future!

[Swindle]

i wish graffiti wasn't on the internet.

 

i wish people were more social without using social media.

 

the internet makes me get sick of things quicker.

 

 

i don't know how to correctly expand on all that and turn it into paragraphs

[!@#$%]

yes.

[UPS!]

We should,

Just like we should

 

Stop eating fast food

Stop waging warfare

Stop getting bitches pregnant

Stop killing each other

 

Stop, drop, shut em down, open up shop, ohh, nooo, thats how ruff riderz roll.

 

No shit this internet thing is poison, but at this stage its irreversable

[Spambot5000]

First off I disagree that computers killing jobs is myopic. We're talking about a continuous trend from 1880 to 2012 across Europe the United States and the rest of the world. I focus on the united states because we're the largest consumers of electricity and computers even compared to Europe, therefor the effects of computers and electricity has been and will continue to be felt in America first.

 

And do you have any evidence that the chainsaw didn't reduce employment? The entire purpose of the chainsaw was to increase efficiency, which meant fewer hands were needed, meaning lumbering companies didn't need so many workers for the same output. The chainsaw was created to give one lumberjack or one lumbering company an advantage over the other companies. Soon as everybody has a chainsaw it becomes an obligatory tool for the job rather than something that provides any advantage over a plain old axe. The same goes for your analogy of the internet creating "Cottage style ebay traders have access to huge markets, media and web designers, code monkeys etc" Did those jobs exist before the internet? Yes, and with even more diversity than we have today. Those people had storefronts and serviced a geographical region rather than a virtual community. Those storefronts were all wiped out by economies of scale, which can only exist if automation exists. The internet didnt create more graphic designers, software developers, artists, or whatever you may be referring to as "cottage style ebay traders." We've had software developers since companies have used Turing machines and mainframes. We had more graphic designers before the internet than we do now. Does the internet create more job opportunities for them? No. But just like lumberjacks have to use chainsaws, all small companies have to use the internet. They don't have a choice. The internet for many is the only market left.

 

Finally I'll pause with this, what's the difference between efficiency and intelligence? Are humans machines? Can google ever be intelligent? Can you ever get the same kind of answers or responses from a search engine that you could get from a person? Can a web store ever replace a store you go into and meet someone? I'm not talking about some giant chain with morons working the floor... I'm talking about the kind of answers you get from a guy who runs a small shop and has a lifetime of experience behind him. When we search for something or buy something online, was that something we really wanted, or are we just pretending it was because it's all that we could find?

 

This is really silly. Here are some quotes.

 

"Unemployment, technological. Unemployment erroneously attributed to the introduction of improved methods of production, such as the use of more efficient capital equipment (tools, machinery, "automation," etc.). As long as unused, or not fully utilized, natural resources exist, there are always opportunities for additional employment in an unhampered market economy.

HA. 136-37,774."

http://mises.org/easier/U.asp

 

"Ricardo effect, the. A proposition of David Ricardo (1772-1823) that an increase in wage rates will lead to a replacement of labor by machines and vice versa, an increase in machinery costs will lead to the use of more labor. This proposition is often cited by interventionists who claim that raising wage rates will increase the use of machinery and thus total production. The argument confuses cause and effect; it is the increased use of capital goods that raises wage rates. Unless increased savings become available, any increase in the use of capital goods by one industry merely reduces the quantity of capital goods available for other industries. When interventionism takes the form of higher than market wages in one firm or industry, it merely produces a shift in the use of the available supplies of capital goods. It thus reduces the marginal productivity of both labor and capital and results in a drop in total production and consumer satisfaction, as existing capital is shifted to where it is less productive than in a free or unhampered market.

HA. 773-76."

http://mises.org/easier/R.asp

 

"The ever-recurring doctrine of “technological unemployment”—man displaced by the machine—is hardly worthy of extended analysis. Its absurdity is evident when we look at the advanced economy and compare it with the primitive one. In the former there is an abundance of machines and processes completely un***known to the latter; yet in the former, standards of living are far higher for far greater numbers of people. How many workers have been “displaced” because of the invention of the shovel? The technological unemployment motif is encouraged by the use of the term “labor-saving devices” for capital goods, which to some minds conjure up visions of laborers being simply discarded. La***bor needs to be “saved” because it is the pre-eminently scarce good and because man’s wants for exchangeable goods are far from satisfied. Furthermore, these wants would not be satisfied at all if the capital-goods structure were not maintained. The more labor is “saved,” the better, for then labor is using more and better capital goods to satisfy more of its wants in a shorter amount of time.

 

Of course, there will be “unemployment” if, as we have stated, workers insist on their own terms for work, and these terms can***not be met. This applies to technological changes as well as any other. The clerk who, for some reason, insists nowadays on work***ing only for a blacksmith or in an old-fashioned general store may well have chosen a large dose of idleness. Any workers who insisted on working in the buggy industry or nothing found them***selves, no doubt, unemployed after the development of the auto***mobile.

 

A technological improvement in an industry will tend to in***crease employment in that industry if the demand for the prod***uct is elastic downward, so that the greater supply of goods in***duces greater consumer spending. On the other hand, an inno***vation in an industry with inelastic demand downward will cause consumers to spend less on the more abundant products, contracting employment in that industry. In short, the process of technological innovation shifts workers from the inelastic-demand to the elastic-demand industries. One of the major sources of new employment demand is in the industry making the new ma***chines.[27]"

 

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap9b.asp#_ftn9

[Soup forgot his password]

You can't refute historical fact with economic proverbs. Especially when you're quoting a few guys that died before electricity, automation, and economies of scale were even invented. This is why I recommended that you go back and look at your chainsaw analogy. If you really want to stick to that analogy, do some research and see what you can find about the chainsaw and the lumbering industry.

 

If you want to know where my facts are coming from ask me, or go straight to the source. I've posted all the books on the subject in the Crossfire Book Thread. You can also go here http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/ for a good jumpoff point.

 

Edit: actually I'm going to take a different approach to those quotes.

 

1.

Unemployment erroneously attributed to the introduction of improved methods of production

ERRONEOUSLY attributed. The person writing this KNOWS that the methods of production don't help unemployment in the long-run.

 

2. This guy died 60 years before electricity. The first rise of middle-class wages occurred when work became so monotonous and boring that nobody wanted to do it. The second came when the cost of living went up because americans had to buy all the electrical appliances that came out of our newfound powergrid. These appliances, much like the powergrid, was first designed to save americans time and money, but as everyone else began to buy them, they just became added expense to the normal cost of living. The vaccuum cleaner, for example ended up adding more hours cleaning than it removed. Why? Because before the vaccuum, people had to drag their rugs outside and beat them. People would hire day servants once a month to help with the house chores, and because of all this, cleaning would be reduced to something you did once a month. Now thanks to the vaccuum the standard of cleanliness was raised and people now vaccuum once a week or even daily. It wasnt until the advent of electrical appliances that the housewife became a full-time job. This meant that husbands needed more money to make their household more automated, leading to more labor unions and a rise in wages. Its easy to assume that this is what lead to automation, but this is false. Automation was already there. The jobs the laborers were doing were jobs that machines COULD do. They were designed to be motonous and repetitive. It was the intention of the companies to reduce the role of humans in the factory to that of cogs, and to eventually replace those cogs with cheaper, automated cogs.

 

 

3. The standard of living peaked in america 40 years ago. It's been going down ever since.

[UPS!]

I got so excited about this thread because I thought Soup was leaving.

 

Yet he's still here, posting in his thread about not using computers, while using a computer.

Fuck I am dissapoint.

[Spambot5000]

The notion that automation is a negative for humanity is absurd Soup. I am not going to put much effort into entertaining this idea, it is seriously a waste of both of our time. Since you're so concerned though, you should put your hypothesis to the test! What about you opt to eschew all forms of automation for 6 months and then come back to tell us if your standard of living has improved? If that is too much of an ask, why not rewind to your golden era of living standards and use only technology available 40 years ago? Be sure to let us know how it works out. To make the experiment easier you could continue to trade with those who are experiencing the benefits of automation, but for the sake of truthfulness it must be recognised that you would be receiving those benefits by proxy.

 

Oh and Rothbard died in '95. He certainly saw the effect of electricity and automation. Likewise, Mises died in '73 and would have observed it's onset.

 

P

[Soup forgot his password]

I was referring to "Ricardo effect, the. A proposition of David Ricardo (1772-1823) " but i think you know that.

 

By the way you just said the publishing of Harvard School of Economics is absurd because you THINK it goes against the word of your long-since dead lord and savior Rothbard and Mises—Not because of any factuality or evidence, but simply because you place faith in their omniscient wisdom. We have another word for that. Im not even sure why you posted in here if you thought it was absurd or silly. Most of what I'm saying comes from books written by Jaron Lanier and Nicholas Carr, both of whom are deeply involved in and greatly respected by the IT industry. Please have a little more intelligence than calling this argument absurd.

 

 

Spam you completely don't understand the argument. Please go back and actually read my posts, or better yet the books I've already recommended. Stop being a man of one book.

 

Cunt you're an angsty adolescent who discovered that he can post and masturbate and other forms of self validation. Please, go to college. Not for yourself, but so the people around you can stand to be near you.

[UPS!]

whyyousomadthough?

 

Also im in university, and you can't take a fucking joke.

You're an angry old man who trys to validate himself on a fucking graffiti sub-forum.

Impressive sir, you are so much wiser than us youngins of 12oz.

 

Oh, and in college we don't need to masturbate because we get women.

Wet pussy, and you keep the five knuckle shuffles for yourself.

[Soup forgot his password]

Somehow i dont think you're getting laid at all. Somewhere between needing to explain that you're fucking "wet" pussy as opposed to dead cat pussy and the fact that you said you dont masturbate leads me to believe you're locked in your mom's basement somewhere embarrassed to even admit you started jerking off. Only a 16 year old would think you give up masturbating after you start getting laid.

 

I'm 26, and I keep the five knuckle shuffle because i'm in a long-term relationship, but that's another thread.

 

And dont drop out of college until you learn how to argue or at least how to be funny because you suck at both.

[cuntflaps]

Long story short, seems like soup has realised he doesn't want to be H+ (transhumanism)

[theprotester]

I just think Soup should stop using computers.

[UPS!]

I just think Soup should stop using computers.

 

/thread

[cunt sauce]

Modern Technology is representation. It is a mediation to direct experience with reality that we once had.

 

For example, instead of being able to tell what's wrong with your baby based on experience, based through interacting with your child, now it's as simple as getting a device!: "The Why Cry Baby Crying Analyzer is a new, innovative device that analyzes your baby's crying and can help you understand and identify why your baby is crying." (http://www.pregnancystore.com/whycry.html)

 

How could we have ever raised children with out it?!?!?! Well in a generation or two of its use, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO, because it will be yet another skill that has been eliminated by techno-industrial modernity. Now you require a distant, "expert" who has a skill that you don't in order to do something as basic as provide care to a loved one. This is the modern development of technology: Further specialisation of skills, further alienation from a life we once had direct power over.

 

Another example is Social Networking. Before, many used to just talk with and hang out with their neighbors and other folks within short distance in their community. Now we have the Internet, which allows us to connect with people around the globe. But they aren't "real" connections, they aren't based in face-to-face contact. You aren't making real relationships with people you can trust and confide in. Many are using technology as a mediation to a social life that they don't have in everyday face-to-face life.

[nsmbfan]

anyone contemplating whether or not computers are "good" for our society could only be the product of a privileged environment.

 

seeing that the bay area is full of people like this, it only stands to reason that in between vegan snack foods and unpopular anime, they would come to this conclusion.

 

i mean, enough genki in your diet and you're bound to curse technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

the only bad computers are the fucking robots you have to speak with when calling customer service. the quality of people who use technology cannot be explained by the technology itself. you give a redneck an iphone and he's got a "Rifle App" that goes bang and he laughs and spills his Budweiser on his shirt.

[cunt sauce]

what a philopsher you are! can't stop the intellect!!!!!1!!!!!!

[Soup forgot his password]

anyone contemplating whether or not computers are "good" for our society could only be the product of a privileged environment.

 

seeing that the bay area is full of people like this, it only stands to reason that in between vegan snack foods and unpopular anime, they would come to this conclusion.

 

i mean, enough genki in your diet and you're bound to curse technology.

 

the only bad computers are the fucking robots you have to speak with when calling customer service. the quality of people who use technology cannot be explained by the technology itself. you give a redneck an iphone and he's got a "Rifle App" that goes bang and he laughs and spills his Budweiser on his shirt.

 

Actually the vegan snack eating anime watching bay aryans dont want to think about whether computers are good for society. We invented the personal computer, the youtube, the google, the silicon valley, the entire information technology industry. We're getting too rich and enjoying our youtubes and our xboxes too much to think about whether this is going to destroy the middle class, the educational system, the environment, or our descendant's quality of life. One lecture you wont find on TED is someone questioning the value of the computer, and you never will. The hippies invented much of the internet and raved about the virtual revolution back in the 60's off Haight and Ashberry. The inventors of VR saw it as the next best thing to LSD.

 

Anyone who who questions the status quo is intellectual. If you believe intellectualism has anything to do with wealth in this country you'll be sad to know that the number of college graduates who came from wealthy families is less than those who are first time college graduates. There is absolutely no correlation between "privelege" and intellectualism.

 

Also I'm advocating books, which are cheaper and more accessible to everyone in this country regardless of class. The information at the library is not only more relevant and of higher quality than the "information" found on the internet, but the format in which it's presented: On paper you can see hold and feel. This also been scientifically proven to allow for deeper concentration, memorization and contemplation. This is only part of what we lose when we transfer our information, and in turn our entire culture, to the internet where it's monopolized and controlled by the Information Technology industry. The printing press democratized information, education, freedom of speech. The internet reduces your voice to a like button. It puts the professionals into a realm competing against a crowd of amateurs who will do your job for free, and it's assumed that the final product is the same thing. Wikipedia is not good because the information is of higher quality than the sources its stolen fragments of information from. It's good because it makes search engines more efficient—not to be confused with more intelligent. It also creates an absurd environment where people like you think your knowledge on the subject is equal my knowledge on the subject, meaning there's no hierarchy of ideas and 99% of the internet is people bullshitting. It doesn't matter how educated or informed you are on a subject, the value of what you know is only as high as your SEO.