Technology and happiness

[blazeofglory]

This topic I am bringing forth here with a purpose that may little-interest you or you may not be moved by it. Yet I cannot help putting into words what wells up inside me. For I am a writer and every writer has the right to express ideas. When a writer is too much reader-sensitive he will annal the quality of a good piece of work.

Let us refrain from arguing philosophically.

Today all I want to say is technology has distanced us from the world of simplicity and this lack of simplicity has aggrieved us beyond measure.

Technology has webbed us and we are hard-wired to one another in this world and this has at one end given us lots of comforts but at the other end it has confiscated the joy of living with a great degree of simplicity.

We have things what our grandpas could not dream of and their wildest imaginations have been translated into realities today. Yet man is getting feebler and feebler today.

[librarius_qui]

Today all I want to say is technology has distanced us from the world of simplicity and this lack of simplicity has aggrieved us beyond measure.

Has it??? How so?

It's a strong statement you claim here! ... I'm not so sure I quite agree with you :hmm:~

(I'll talk about technology, as the thread goes on. But, then, what technology are you talking about is something else. You're clearly talking about the web. I put so because, when you talk about technology, I'm thinking about colonizing the Solar System, .. which is one line of writing I propose ... So, there's a lot on "technology" to talk about, when you talk about technology. I'll keep to the web, unless people (or you) wish to talk about other things too ...)

[Nightshade]

This thread has been moved, to Serious Discussions, a more fitting subforum. Enjoy your discussion!
:D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Today all I want to say is technology has distanced us from the world of simplicity and this lack of simplicity has aggrieved us beyond measure.

I'm sure Wordsworth would have agreed with you. I personally have some sympathy for the argument too.

[librarius_qui]

What's technology?

Isn't the steem machinery technology?
Isn't the press technology?
What about aqueducts? (Roman ones ...) Are those technology?

Is writing itself technology?

I wander ...

[Niamh]

we are a race of GaGa people! Nooooooooo! I want to be a bohemian! :brow: (okay back to serious...the cat is giving me a weird look.)

[Annabelle]

I don't have much to say, because I totally agree. People just forgot how the things we think to be unreachable are already attained, and what we should do now is just slow down, live, feel, feel the simplicity. I really cannot express myself. But couldn't just clump my hand and read.

[Mr Endon]

Hot topic! (to be said in Jim Gaffigan's 'Hot Pocket' voice)

blazeofglory, all of my favourite modernists, and all the great Romantics, agree with you. People who sympathise with certain Eastern philosophy and religions ditto.

And I myself agree with you - to a point. I think that we should be able to attain a balance between technology and simplicity. Not only is it not possible to return to pure simplicity, it's not desirable either: we'd all fall like leaves in Autumn.

Moderation is the right measure for all things, and this is no different. If you manage to get the best out of the two worlds, then you'll no doubt find happiness as well.

[aBIGsheep]

Go read Ishmael.

[Desolation]

To me, we've gotten to a point (dubbed "the digital age") where technology is incredibly dehumanizing.

I have no problem with cars, or refrigerators, or radios, or televisions, or any of that. But a lot of modern advances seem so unnecessary, and are making the world run on wires and microchips, and the human spirit is dying. Even music has deteriorated into people playing on computers. Books and paper are also slowing going obsolete. It's absurd.

[aBIGsheep]

To me, we've gotten to a point (dubbed "the digital age") where technology is incredibly dehumanizing.

I have no problem with cars, or refrigerators, or radios, or televisions, or any of that. But a lot of modern advances seem so unnecessary, and are making the world run on wires and microchips, and the human spirit is dying. Even music has deteriorated into people playing on computers. Books and paper are also slowing going obsolete. It's absurd.

Maybe it's called evolution?

[Desolation]

Maybe it's called evolution?Perhaps. But it would be the first time that evolution has actually made a species weaker.

[Big Al]

Perhaps. But it would be the first time that evolution has actually made a species weaker.

Human beings have removed themselves from natural selection, and technology is a huge part of it. For example: in nature, if an animal has abnormally poor eyesight, it is unlikely that it will last very long against such harsh competition and eager predators. Human beings, however, accomodate through the use of technology, such as eyeglasses in this specific instance. Technology has levelled the playing field -- it gives everybody a fair chance, not simply the strongest or the fittest, and as such it offers a greater benefit to everybody.

[Desolation]

Human beings have removed themselves from natural selection, and technology is a huge part of it. For example: in nature, if an animal has abnormally poor eyesight, it is unlikely that it will last very long against such harsh competition and eager predators. Human beings, however, accomodate through the use of technology, such as eyeglasses in this specific instance. Technology has levelled the playing field -- it gives everybody a fair chance, not simply the strongest or the fittest, and as such it offers a greater benefit to everybody.This is a very valid point. And technology such as eyeglasses and such are great. But I still dislike the advances of the digital age, and where it appears that technology is going.

Yeah, I pick and choose.

[Buh4Bee]

I don't know if I can disagree with the advantages technology grants to humans in the ability to live a comfortable life. I'd like to think that humans can still be connected to nature and maintain their humanity even with the use of tools. (By the way, I like the previous mentioned example of glasses.)

I just finished putting in my garden. I had to till the lower part of my garden by hand with a hoe. It sucked and I didn't like it, because my back hurts now. My neighbor tills the upper part in half the time with a rototiller. Which would you prefer to use?

I don't know if tools or technology remove us from the process of natural selection, but I do know technology makes farming a heck of a lot easier. I think the person who never leave their office, because of technology, should at least sit by a window. I spend a lot of time in nature, so I cannot always relate to the world that does not. Call it my mind-blindness, city autism. I like to think about the future optimistically and not lament the past.

[billl]

There have been advances in pharmaceuticals to make people feel happy. Also, video games can provide feelings of power, and help people to safely fantasize that they are action heros, star athletes, and even gods. With forums and hyperlinks, we can now converse anonymously, at great distances from each other, and respond to the postings of others with links to an article or a video that someone else made.


IS IT SERIOUS?

Technology has always affected how we think and live, I guess, but things are moving fast now, and I think the 'advantages' are mixed. Twitter, Facebook, Google, all sorts of stuff is being handed out to us, and we might use it in useful ways, but I think a lot of it ends up being time wasted. Probably everyone on the net knows how easy it is to check email or a forum MUCH more than is necessary. And it's very hard to 'just check something' on the internet (here's an interesting article about online habits that I spotted at Arts and Letters Daily: http://www.nplusonemag.com/node/678/print ).


WHERE'S ALL THE INFO GOING?

This stuff is like candy, but who (or what) is handing it to us, and why? There is sometimes some ad revenue, yes, or claims to be focussing on recruiting more users, etc.--but the affect that the tech has, not only on our time, but on our ways of thinking and interacting, deserves careful consideration. Just as important, we should try to make sure that as many people as possible understand who and/or what has access to how much of our information.

I don't know if it's fair to point the finger at business, government, or just chalk it up to the inherent appeal of new tech advances, but I think there's a threat to individual independence going on. Not for everyone, not right away, but there are a lot of new things that right now share the appeal, the advertising, and the utility that cigarettes did in decades past. I read recently that the default settings for a new Facebook member were far from the most secure/private, and that most people weren't even aware of these settings. And, for all the use that twitter might be to some, I think it's often just another way to hook people on the 'neat' factor and inferior modes of 'connection'--in exchange for short and simple bursts of information about personal habits, which can be analyzed and used by marketers and designers for various reasons, including to possibly rope people into the next 'community'. As we pour key words of our thoughts into channels of information, we become more vulnerable to manipulation: by advertising, by entertainment and news media, and by the very options made available to us (the limitations, intentional or otherwise) as we click, choose, and watch.


IT'S NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE

I think there's another point about the empowerment brought on by technology. The ones who are most empowered are the ones who serve it best. If you tinker and study and hack away at it, the system evolves, and you can reap great rewards, and be alert to many dangers. If you are a retiree, following the urgings of your bank (which wants to cut costs and automate), you can get convenient, at-home reports. And you might also end up having your identity stolen. Follow your curiosity just a bit on the wider web, and pretty soon there's no telling how many strangers will know which meds interest you, or which cultural cues you respond to.


ARE WE SEEKING EFFICIENCY?

It's great there are some efforts out there to educate people about this stuff, and it seems that a discussion is beginning (not just here). And I don't mean to ignore all of the obviously good uses of the tech. And I also don't mean to ignore the fact that a lot of the benefits are going to be a double-edged sword, no matter what. But I do think that an open, thorough analysis and debate should happen, focussing on these issues. Specifically, we need to think about how important "efficiency" is. For tech, for networks, it's very important; and that tends to put pressure on humans using the tech, pressure to accept standardization, to disclose information, and to think in terms easily communicated via the tech. This is all an unfortunate distortion of what we are capable of as humans, and possibly injurious to our very selves. Already there seem to be dangers for addiction and/or emotional co-dependency (humans needing 'neat' tech; needing the media drama; needing the safe, semi-real contact; measuring happiness in the frequency of texts from friends...). And the sources and potential solutions to these disturbing trends are largely hidden from the vast majority of us.

:)
This site's good though, huh?

[JBI]

Meh, technology doesn't bring happiness - the internet is just a pop-craze, it will soon go away, just wait and see! It's like wigs in the 18th century.

[Jozanny]

Eh, methinks the terms of debate are too broad here. Communication technology is one thing, but medical technology is another, as are other technologies. Are the disabled too expensive? Is a wheelchair necessarily dehumanizing? A feeding tube? Catheter bag? I'm miserable. Why? I failed to fully integrate successfully into ableist society, despite all the laws and transportation access available. Should disabled babies just be allowed to die, or the elderly not be provided with diapers and dentures and cyborg parts? The deaf not provided with ears implanted in the brain, or the blind not have their sight improved?

I think we need a better frame of reference. Books are technology. As is mass media. Need I keep going?

[Buh4Bee]

Jozanny,
I think I'm on your level in thinking about technology. Drugs and the internet highway offer great advances for humanity, but in defining these advantages the categories are broad. Simple inventions like the wheelchair and glasses could make day to day life better for some. But on the other hand, do drugs help those with mental illness?

Food for thought...

[JBI]

Jozanny,
I think I'm on your level in thinking about technology. Drugs and the internet highway offer great advances for humanity, but in defining these advantages the categories are broad. Simple inventions like the wheelchair and glasses could make day to day life better for some. But on the other hand, do drugs help those with mental illness?

Food for thought...
I have looked at the documents, and in truth, since Semaphore, this whole idea of humanity advancing through "eases of communication" has been put forward. Morse Code too, of course, oh, and radio, cinema, television, now the Internet. Of course, the greatest use of semaphore took place on ships, with new ways to communicate enabling an ease in killing one's enemies. It would seem, that the greatest early pioneers in radio, in terms of influence, would be none other than Musolini and Hitler, the latter of which also, it can be said, kicked off the television craze, notably with the Berlin Olympics, an event that also made great use of movies as a mode of propaganda.

Television, in essence, has always been, since the beginning, a propaganda tool. Ultimately, it is just another form of text, only it has been made to spread over space far better than the published word. The Internet too, I would argue, is just the next step in textualization of the world, where the discussion is broken off for the means of written-form communication. All these things, including other inventions like printing, pulp paper, automatic presses, and other such great inventions, are merely constructs used to communicate over space - they do not exactly, stimulate discussion, since text can only possible engage one way. Take a call in radio show, even if you get on, you only get like one question before your time is up - so much for discussion. The only time written media hold a discussion, is when they quote or discuss each other. But is that allowing the audience to communicate?


Take face book for instance; people construct their lives from "Likes and Hates" and "who are my friends" and a series of selected photographs, to essentially create a personality. Chat rooms too, it can be said, create this sort of textual personality.

Hell, I'll take it one step further - this post you are reading, the ideas, they have all been assembled by me, to make me appear to hold certain views - the man writing them is essentially invisible, and like a magician, I conceal what I don't want shown, and fabricate and invent when you wouldn't know any better. And in truth, it doesn't matter, since the discussion on these boards, ultimately, is a textual discussion. There is communication, but I would argue, it isn't exactly what we would call progressive communication, in a time sense, meaning that what is said today carries weight into the tomorrow. It is, as I have stated, a spatially superior one however, given that we can communicate with larger amounts of people, from all over the place, that is its bias.

We like to put weight into the importance of communication devices as being "progressive" and heralding a new future of communication and understanding, but I would argue that has never been the case. If we want to look at technology that has advanced humanity, why not go for the obvious? Refrigeration for one - that's seems to have been the most significant invention in the longest time. House heating is another one, (a continuation of the great invention of the chimney, which ended the rein of the mead hall style housing in Beowulf and brought about an emergence of sexual intimacy) as is the tractor. Hell, even the seat belt. Certainly various medicines (though, some of them are hardly any good), and a whole slew of other ones, sometimes very simple. The most significant invention in the history of humanity, it can be argued, was the plow, but I don't see anyone really paying it much attention - it only was the founding item that allowed the emergence of civilization.

[Jozanny]

jersea,

Like many other subset-interlinkages, physical disability and mental health have points of intersection, even though the two groups have different needs. I worked in both fields, and while I am not an expert and do not want to be considered such, the pharmaceutical issue is dicey. Take anti-depressants. Half the people in the US are on them; first they were hailed as a miracle cure, and now, voila, the data shows that they only work within certain parameters for persons with depression who have the best support systems.

Being *high-strung* runs in my family, and my mother needed medication. Her sister, too, was on script as she hit fifty. My sister took Zolcroft during pregnancy and took herself off it due to symptoms of suicidal ideation. I took Wellbutrian for a year due to panic attacks which I acquired due to a series of unfortunate events, and I too stopped the drug, as it did nothing for my underlying emotional issues. But it does seem that really ill brains need a battery of pyscho-tropic medications to get the patient within range of acceptable social behavior. This, however, may be a side issue to the Op's intent.

Not to beat a dead horse, but technology is too ingrained within our success as a social primate. We seem to enjoy complaining about electronics, but so what? Televisions, computers, telephones, have no inherent negative or positive values. It is what humans do with them, and how they operate within the social dynamic, that bears observation.

Even if, through a combination of nuclear threat and environmental damage, we slaughter ourselves back to the stone age, we'd still use agriculture as a technology. Tying this to personal well-being simply doesn't interest me much, but by all means, enjoy the topic for yourselves.

[Maximilianus]

Has anyone noticed that many people complain about what they use everyday, or am I having the wrong impression?

If we don't want others to know who we are then...

why do we chat (on forums, chat programs and so on)?
why do we answer e-mails?
why do we supply personal information when we sign up on a website?
why do we even buy computers and surf the web?


Are we really displeased with technology and, if so, to what extent?
How do we know for sure that without technology we're gonna be more humane?

I know people who never sat in front of a computer and when they feel like, instead of pruning their trees they actually murder them. Is this a lack of humanity? I say it is. Anyone of you ever seen a murdered tree? Well... I have, and I spend most of my time in front of a computer so I wonder... has technology made me less human? How can I tell a dead tree from a living one? Just by mere coincidence?

How about me? I want to keep surfing the web and I want to keep surfing lakes for as long as either of them remains existing, because I like both and not only on the belief that by doing only the latter I'm more of a man and less of a man-machine.

Oh, by the way, trees have been murdered since much before the invention of technology. If I'm not wrong, trees are being murdered since the invention of "humanity". Anyone follows my point? ;)

[billl]

Has anyone noticed that many people complain about what they use everyday, or am I having the wrong impression?

If we don't want others to know who we are then...

why do we chat (on forums, chat programs and so on)?
why do we answer e-mails?
why do we supply personal information when we sign up on a website?
why do we even buy computers and surf the web?



I think the reason a lot of people do those things is because they don't realize how unsecure email is, or how extensively their information can be distributed. I think that what we see in a web browser looks amazingly innocent, relative to what is hidden. That's why I think the comparison to cigarettes is interesting (but not perfect). If you look at a pack of cigs, it almost looks like candy. And the advertising for smoking didn't (doesn't) hint at the dangers (except, perhaps, subliminally...). Well, like cigarettes, any harm we might suffer because of internet use won't necessarily be immediate, and the shiny, "secure" appearance of the web-surfing experience keeps us coming back for more. If anything, the immediate cough from a cigarette was relatively fair warning compared to some of the convoluted scams (teeth-whitener anyone?) that await us on the most trusted websites.

Computers and the internet are compelling. And people tend to be trusting, if shown an innocent face. The dangers are beneath the surface, and I think, more and more, people will find their personal information being used in ways they disapprove of--and it will be impossible for most of them to recognize which long-past click(s) of a link was responsible for their problem. They might not make the connection at all.

That's why I limit the places I go on the net (it can all be tracked), keep my eyes open for strange addresses, and try to think about how my information is being used. Things will only get worse (especially for the less technologically adept) unless an awareness of this problem is built up. The internet should be a great tool for us--and it is obviously is, the advantages are far from hidden--but I'm not sure if it is evolving with sufficient concern for its affect on users. That's why I posted earlier about how we need to make sure it isn't used to manipulate us, or decrease the way we function just for the sake of its preferred forms.

We use the internet because it's useful, and it is only sensible for us to be concerned that it continue to be useful to us. There are problems with it, but running away from them isn't the best "solution". And I further contend that ignoring those problems is not a good solution, either. (That's how we got seat-belts, by the way). When we ENJOY the internet (or any other technology), it should be because it is enriching our life--not because we are being taken in by some level of a confidence scheme, being fed pleasures on our way to some misrepresented trap, or being exploited in some Pavlovian fashion.

In the EU, a "Pirate" party recently won a bit of official poitical influence. Maybe it's cute and exciting to see the skull and crossbones and all of that. And they certainly are a voice against government monopoly over citizen information--which might be the most frightenting prospect of all, depending on the government I guess. And, yeah, the pirates are anti-big-business, and they'll get some sympathy for fighting that often bloated, selfish beast. But let's remember that actual piracy actually isn't so heroic, and a lot of kids have grown up believing that theft, and online insults and harrassment, are just fine, when the victims are an internet away.

[Buh4Bee]

Not to beat a dead horse, but technology is too ingrained within our success as a social primate. We seem to enjoy complaining about electronics, but so what? Televisions, computers, telephones, have no inherent negative or positive values. It is what humans do with them, and how they operate within the social dynamic, that bears observation.

Even if, through a combination of nuclear threat and environmental damage, we slaughter ourselves back to the stone age, we'd still use agriculture as a technology. Tying this to personal well-being simply doesn't interest me much, but by all means, enjoy the topic for yourselves.

I believe you are saying that technology is develop along side humanity's evolution. True, and further that we have social rules to govern the way technology is implemented. I guess, I return to your original point that the pharmaceutical industry is a tricky one. Why? Drugs are prescribed and the people who become victims due to their physiological make up end up dead or committing suicide. How does that make people happy?
I see your point.



We like to put weight into the importance of communication devices as being "progressive" and heralding a new future of communication and understanding, but I would argue that has never been the case. If we want to look at technology that has advanced humanity, why not go for the obvious? Refrigeration for one - that's seems to have been the most significant invention in the longest time. House heating is another one, (a continuation of the great invention of the chimney, which ended the rein of the mead hall style housing in Beowulf and brought about an emergence of sexual intimacy) as is the tractor. Hell, even the seat belt. Certainly various medicines (though, some of them are hardly any good), and a whole slew of other ones, sometimes very simple. The most significant invention in the history of humanity, it can be argued, was the plow, but I don't see anyone really paying it much attention - it only was the founding item that allowed the emergence of civilization.

In my original point I asked if people think drugs make people happy, and also that the definitive categories being discussed were quite broad. This is why I asked about drugs.

I am interested in your discussion about communication devices. Are you comparing the plow to communication devices and saying that one is better than the other? I agree that the plow is a far superior invention, because of how greatly it advanced society. But we can't forget the benefits that specifically the internet offers us all such as open access to knowledge as well as education (how-to). I can say that both these inventions make me happy.