Great column, but also terrifying. Many of these technological advances seem like they can also contribute to human flourishing, and yet as you correctly point out, they are exploiting our most basic urges. It is a shame, and I do not really see how to fight against these trends -- maybe trying to have an educated discourse with nuance...
And yet it seems it is not doing much. To what degree does substack play similarly as we all learn to use likes, comments, and subscriptions as a metric? Worse we may be under the illusion that we are making points, that we are engaging in dialogue when, in reality, we just found our silo where our ideas echo? I suspect, that if we make it through, there will be awe about just how unregulated all this was... much in the same way as we are sometimes in disbelief about the lack of regulations and safeguards in the past.
Probably won't do much good trying to buck the trend, historically we like entertainment and its a very useful distraction, as the colleseums of Rome proved a long time ago.
Educated discourse was and always will remain an niche thing. I've watched some of those, hours long ones, and the ones that made it through are usually 30s clever verbal soundbites and talking over the opponent in an obnoxious manner, which makes the discourse anti educational (but entertaining), but i digress....
Substack seems to have fallen victim to the almighty algorithm and create echo chambers with like minded articles and content, however, instead of looking at it that way, I like to see it as helping me find and connect with like minded people that would result in interesting exchange of ideas or discourses. But yeah, that's not everyone's cup of tea...
You wisely write, "And should any modern Cassandra dare suggest otherwise — that perhaps not every new gizmo is a gift from Olympus — they are swiftly branded a Luddite"
Human existence is rich in irony, and this is one of those.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of our science based civilization is a simplistic, outdated, and increasingly dangerous knowledge philosophy left over from the 19th century. But if you should suggest that maybe we should replace that outdated philosophy with an ability to manage the knowledge explosion (which inevitably will require saying no in some cases) you are labeled a Luddite by the science clergy.
The science clergy will insist that LEARNING SOMETHING NEW, how to actually take control of the knowledge explosion, is a backward Luddite idea. The science clergy wants to cling to the 19th century "more is better" knowledge philosophy, and that is labeled advanced.
The following article outlines the logic failure which keeps this sad irony alive....
You're right about checks and balances. There seems to be very little of it nowadays for almost anything new, and we stick to the principle of "let's just do it now, fix it, and regulate it later," which results in many issues down the line.
In this case, it seems a shift of thinking will be a long time coming...
Yea, this slow decline has been ongoing for a while now, though it seems more pronounced post-covid. I can only shudder at the potential future we're looking at.
Great column, but also terrifying. Many of these technological advances seem like they can also contribute to human flourishing, and yet as you correctly point out, they are exploiting our most basic urges. It is a shame, and I do not really see how to fight against these trends -- maybe trying to have an educated discourse with nuance...
And yet it seems it is not doing much. To what degree does substack play similarly as we all learn to use likes, comments, and subscriptions as a metric? Worse we may be under the illusion that we are making points, that we are engaging in dialogue when, in reality, we just found our silo where our ideas echo? I suspect, that if we make it through, there will be awe about just how unregulated all this was... much in the same way as we are sometimes in disbelief about the lack of regulations and safeguards in the past.
Thanks for your comment!
Probably won't do much good trying to buck the trend, historically we like entertainment and its a very useful distraction, as the colleseums of Rome proved a long time ago.
Educated discourse was and always will remain an niche thing. I've watched some of those, hours long ones, and the ones that made it through are usually 30s clever verbal soundbites and talking over the opponent in an obnoxious manner, which makes the discourse anti educational (but entertaining), but i digress....
Substack seems to have fallen victim to the almighty algorithm and create echo chambers with like minded articles and content, however, instead of looking at it that way, I like to see it as helping me find and connect with like minded people that would result in interesting exchange of ideas or discourses. But yeah, that's not everyone's cup of tea...
You wisely write, "And should any modern Cassandra dare suggest otherwise — that perhaps not every new gizmo is a gift from Olympus — they are swiftly branded a Luddite"
Human existence is rich in irony, and this is one of those.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of our science based civilization is a simplistic, outdated, and increasingly dangerous knowledge philosophy left over from the 19th century. But if you should suggest that maybe we should replace that outdated philosophy with an ability to manage the knowledge explosion (which inevitably will require saying no in some cases) you are labeled a Luddite by the science clergy.
The science clergy will insist that LEARNING SOMETHING NEW, how to actually take control of the knowledge explosion, is a backward Luddite idea. The science clergy wants to cling to the 19th century "more is better" knowledge philosophy, and that is labeled advanced.
The following article outlines the logic failure which keeps this sad irony alive....
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/the-logic-failure-at-the-heart-of
Thanks for your comment!
You're right about checks and balances. There seems to be very little of it nowadays for almost anything new, and we stick to the principle of "let's just do it now, fix it, and regulate it later," which results in many issues down the line.
In this case, it seems a shift of thinking will be a long time coming...
Great essay although terrifying, as the reader below has commented. I cannot bu echo his words... Gosh!
Thanks for reading and your comment!
Yea, this slow decline has been ongoing for a while now, though it seems more pronounced post-covid. I can only shudder at the potential future we're looking at.