The following comments I saw while browsing the internet one day kind of caught my attention, it made me wonder what people in the past would think about us today.
Meh. The same facility of argument upthread that warns against painting a rosy picture of any time period could equally be applied to the present. I very much don’t think that the combination of humans and environment was ever designed by mother nature, no matter the epoch, to make the average human subject miserable. Especially when the concept of misery itself changes. Not enough leeway is being made here for our brain’s adaptive capabilities (and relative pleasures). Are all animals, since their lives are “nasty shortish brute” and so forth, miserable? (I keep using the word miserable, but feel free to substitute whatever negative word you’d like. As another bit for thought, going back in time and telling some human ancestor we now spend several hours a day parked in front of static two-dimensional chunks of plastic that emit little dots of light might result in some, perhaps zen-like, guffaws of sad amusement.)
And given the absolutely fantastic technological leverage humans now enjoy today, is it not true that that leverage comes with a greater potential for planet-ending outcomes?
You’re absolutely right, they’d probably laugh at people reading books too (and after understanding, perhaps make comments to the effect, “Look at all the burdens your technologies place on you. Having to spend most days in a room learning for years and years, instead of living your life.”). But here’s where your equivalence between books and screen entertainment rings false, in modern contexts, we know better, that reading tends to be much more nutritive than tv or playing candy crush. They’d laugh even after grasping what the two-dimensional chunk of plastic does. (For a modern treatise on the vapidity of some of our modern entertainments, for anyone who likes reading (a lot), see David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest”.)
Oh look another, “I hate humans” topic from this poster, what a surprise.
They’d think we live in paradise.
Oh look another, "I hate humans" topic from this poster, what a surprise.Please make a useful comment. Well I honestly don't know what they would think. The point about us staring into a plastic box seems to fit.
I think it’s pretty likely that people bemoaned the advent of printed books, saying that people no longer had to listen to words and nuance would be lost.
The “mindless TV” complaint feels similar.
I think it's pretty likely that people bemoaned the advent of printed books, saying that people no longer had to listen to words and nuance would be lost. The "mindless TV" complaint feels similar.That seems like a good thing. TO be honest it seems like its a dislike of change.
I think it's pretty likely that people bemoaned the advent of printed books, saying that people no longer had to listen to words and nuance would be lost. The "mindless TV" complaint feels similar.That seems like a good thing. TO be honest it seems like its a dislike of change. There is a term which addresses this; "resistance to change"
What is the meaning of resistance to change? Definition. Resistance to change is the action taken by individuals and groups when they perceive that a change that is occurring as a threat to them. Key words here are 'perceive' and 'threat'. The threat need not be real or large for resistance to occur.IMO, it is an extension of the fundamental survival instinct of; "flight or fight".
Oh look another, "I hate humans" topic from this poster, what a surprise.Please make a useful comment. Well I honestly don't know what they would think. The point about us staring into a plastic box seems to fit. Hey they had their mesmerizing camp and hearth fires that they stared into for those many hours between nightfall and sleep. From countless hours doing the same, I'm convinced the flames were the first boobtube and that they inspired more than a few stories.
There is a term which addresses this; "resistance to change"please explain. I also wonder about your "key words" considering that not all those perceived threats were phantoms, considering the State of our World, seems to me their were a lot of truths within the disregarded warnings about the voracious blind embrace of everything new.What is the meaning of resistance to change? Definition. Resistance to change is the action taken by individuals and groups when they perceive that a change that is occurring as a threat to them. Key words here are 'perceive' and 'threat'. The threat need not be real or large for resistance to occur.IMO, it is an extension of the fundamental survival instinct of; "flight or fight".
I don’t think he’s arguing that everything new is good, but rather that people just reject something new because it’s new and it would require their life to change. There’s a difference between skepticism about something new and paranoia.
I don't think he's arguing that everything new is good, but rather that people just reject something new because it's new and it would require their life to change. There's a difference between skepticism about something new and paranoia.true enough. But many people also embrace the new with complete disregard to need or more importantly consequences. Consider our oceans and advances in fishing technology and all that has wrought. Heck consider the collective disregard for limiting our human population explosion. Or consumption/growth obsession. Or that fossil fuels burning thing. I'm not saying all new is bad or anything like that, what's bad is ignoring the various down sides and not tempering our natural veracity. Not only bad, in the long run suicidal - and we are at the tail-end of a long wonderfully gluttonous run.
Citizenschallenge said;Note, I said "extension", not "expression" of "flight or fight". And the OP mentions "our ancestors", which would know very little about the way things work and any unknown phenomenon could be a potential threat. This is a fundamental survival mechanism of the brain, which IMO, still is functional at some sub-conscious level and is expressed in more sophisticated ways. An example might be the fear of touching people with AIDS, before we knew how it is transmitted. Even today, there are many people who would not come within 10' of someone with AIDS. On a social level, we have "traditions", which are unbreakable in the eyes of some and who will fight any change which ITO are dangerous to the community morals. Example, to some fundamentalist Muslims an apostate is dangerous to all of Islam and must be "killed". To an apostate, it is best to "avoid" a fundamentalist Muslim. In that society "fight or flight" is still a reality. I see these behaviors as sophisticated (evolved) extensions of that fundamental survival mechanism, which for our ancestors was an essential response mechanism.W4U said; There is a term which addresses this; "resistance to change"please explain. I also wonder about your "key words" considering that not all those perceived threats were phantoms, considering the State of our World, seems to me their were a lot of truths within the disregarded warnings about the voracious blind embrace of everything new.What is the meaning of resistance to change? Definition. Resistance to change is the action taken by individuals and groups when they perceive that a change that is occurring as a threat to them. Key words here are 'perceive' and 'threat'. The threat need not be real or large for resistance to occur.IMO, it is an extension of the fundamental survival instinct of; "flight or fight".
I don't think he's arguing that everything new is good, but rather that people just reject something new because it's new and it would require their life to change. There's a difference between skepticism about something new and paranoia.true enough. But many people also embrace the new with complete disregard to need or more importantly consequences. Consider our oceans and advances in fishing technology and all that has wrought. Heck consider the collective disregard for limiting our human population explosion. Or consumption/growth obsession. Or that fossil fuels burning thing. I'm not saying all new is bad or anything like that, what's bad is ignoring the various down sides and not tempering our natural veracity. Not only bad, in the long run suicidal - and we are at the tail-end of a long wonderfully gluttonous run. Population isn't a problem, the growth for it has gone down
I don't think he's arguing that everything new is good, but rather that people just reject something new because it's new and it would require their life to change. There's a difference between skepticism about something new and paranoia.true enough. But many people also embrace the new with complete disregard to need or more importantly consequences. Consider our oceans and advances in fishing technology and all that has wrought. Heck consider the collective disregard for limiting our human population explosion. Or consumption/growth obsession. Or that fossil fuels burning thing. I'm not saying all new is bad or anything like that, what's bad is ignoring the various down sides and not tempering our natural veracity. Not only bad, in the long run suicidal - and we are at the tail-end of a long wonderfully gluttonous run. Population isn't a problem, the growth for it has gone down rowth is growth and even a steady growth of 1% results in a doubling of the present population in 70 years. You need to brush up on the "exponential function"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ghHia-M54or
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html