1215: Insight

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

1215: Insight

Postby jpk » Wed May 22, 2013 4:33 am UTC

Image

Alt text: The great thing is, the sentence is really just a reminder to the listener to worry about whatever aspects of the technology they're already feeling alarmist about, which in their mind gives you credit for addressing their biggest anxieties.

... or you could raise actual issues that might be worth considering. That's a little more work, but oddly satisfying.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby rhomboidal » Wed May 22, 2013 4:37 am UTC

I really have to be careful with my vocabulary fetish during a debate. If someone drops the "blithely" bomb on me, they're halfway home.

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Quicksilver » Wed May 22, 2013 4:38 am UTC

"Maybe before we rush to adopt 3D Printers we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives."

hmmmm.......

ijuin
Posts: 819
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ijuin » Wed May 22, 2013 4:50 am UTC

Meh, it's not the technology per se, it's our inability to resist the urge to abuse it.

Google Glass specifically doesn't add much that the next generation of smartphones won't already be capable of, beyond the physical format that allows it to be head-mounted rather than handheld and the fact that other people can not see what you are viewing on the display. Thus, the main social/privacy concern is that onlookers have no idea what you are actually doing with the device at any given moment. Are you recording audio/video? Have you been recording it for the past X minutes already? Are you looking up relevant information to the discussion at hand, or are you just goofing off as a diversion? Unlike a handheld device, which you can assume is only recording when the user is holding it in a certain way (with lens unblocked and facing outward), you can't tell when a GLASS user is recording or not, and to assume that he/she is recording every minute that he/she is wearing it just fuels the paranoia.

To draw a parallel with other current-day tech, Facebook lets us post our lives to show to other people, but we still have not overcome the desire to pick apart everybody's lives with a fine-toothed comb in search of juicy gossip. That is why you'll never live down that one embarrassing photo that got posted--not because the photo itself is available, but rather because we as a society and as individuals are incapable of looking at an embarrassing photo of someone and NOT gossiping about it.

User avatar
MotorToad
Really Repeatedly Redundantly Redundant
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:09 pm UTC
Location: Saint Joseph, CA
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby MotorToad » Wed May 22, 2013 5:15 am UTC

Am I wrong or is this the first instance of White Hat Guy as the character who thinks he's trick like Black Hat Guy but swims in fail?
What did you bring the book I didn't want read out of up for?
"MAN YOUR WAY TO ANAL!" (An actual quote from another forum. Only four small errors from making sense.)

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby jpk » Wed May 22, 2013 5:32 am UTC

ijuin wrote:Meh, it's not the technology per se, it's our inability to resist the urge to abuse it.


The latter part is true. And since the design of a technology more or less defines the sorts of use and abuses we can expect from it, the former part is false: it is the technology per se, at least to a large degree. People will use it as designed, and if that means they'll do stupid, rude, or dangerous things with it, then the technology is designed to facilitate stupidity, rudeness, and hazardous behavior. Expect more morons behind the wheel unable to attend to the the traffic around them (as if there aren't plenty already), expect more twits who can't pay attention all the way through a whole conversation, expect more imbeciles who think that they don't need to know anything that they can look up. Just people using the device as designed, and adapting to the world we're building for them.

It'll be fun, if you like that sort of thing.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 22, 2013 5:49 am UTC

Before we rush to adopt steam power we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.

Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Yupa
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:06 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Yupa » Wed May 22, 2013 6:03 am UTC

Maybe before we rush to adopt pithy sentences from XKCD, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby da Doctah » Wed May 22, 2013 7:22 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Before we rush to adopt steam power we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.


I was going to fill in the mouldboard plow, but whatever.

"Fire" or "the wheel" were just a little too obvious.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Wed May 22, 2013 7:36 am UTC

This kind of approach gets demolished by simple answer:

"Such as?"

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby StClair » Wed May 22, 2013 7:37 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:"Fire" or "the wheel" were just a little too obvious.


"ME AM PLAY GODS!"

billybobfred
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby billybobfred » Wed May 22, 2013 7:40 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.

Isn't that the joke?
she/her/hers

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby snowyowl » Wed May 22, 2013 9:00 am UTC

Maybe before we rush to adopt sentences of the form "Maybe before we rush to adopt <technology>, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.", we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Barstro » Wed May 22, 2013 12:30 pm UTC

billybobfred wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.

Isn't that the joke?


But that's not the joke. The joke is; here's a sentence to remember for when you don't know what you are talking about.

And saying "let's think about this" is not the same as "change is bad". It means, simply, "let's think about this". The steam engine was putting an awful lot of pressure in something that could easily explode. Taking the time to think about it is what allowed people to design boilers and engines to work safely.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Flumble » Wed May 22, 2013 12:33 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:Maybe before we rush to adopt sentences of the form "Maybe before we rush to adopt <technology>, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.", we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.

Why yes, you're probably right.
Still, you're the only one who'd consider the consequences, as others simply have given in.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby cellocgw » Wed May 22, 2013 12:53 pm UTC

Yupa wrote:Maybe before we rush to adopt pithy sentences from XKCD, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.


Too late.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Wed May 22, 2013 1:23 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:
billybobfred wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.

Isn't that the joke?


But that's not the joke. The joke is; here's a sentence to remember for when you don't know what you are talking about.

And saying "let's think about this" is not the same as "change is bad". It means, simply, "let's think about this". The steam engine was putting an awful lot of pressure in something that could easily explode. Taking the time to think about it is what allowed people to design boilers and engines to work safely.


Nah, the sentence is exactly what people who don't know what they're talking about are always saying when a new technology pops up. Sometimes they may have a point, but usually it's just ignorance speaking.

sonar1313
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby sonar1313 » Wed May 22, 2013 2:07 pm UTC

If I can play the Luddite for a bit here, Google Glass is an instance where the company behind it is making no secret of the fact that they intend and expect it to be a universally adopted technology. Google tends to have this problem sometimes where they hubristically develop something that they announce will change the world forever and smilingly expect that it'll be so great that they can't understand why there'd be resistance to the idea. Glass is a perfect example; driverless cars are another. So I'm not sure it's all that wrong to say, whoa, let's think of the consequences here before we rush to adopt, even if you don't know yet what those consequences are. Given time, it's not hard to think of a few, but there's nothing unhealthy about assuming there must be some downsides to a technology whose backers have a vested financial interest in its universal adoption.

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby TimXCampbell » Wed May 22, 2013 2:20 pm UTC

I'm waiting until they develop NeoCortiGoogle (i.e. an interface direct to the neocortex). That's just a few steps away from a global hive mind and the end of war ... and privacy, of course. Apes don't need privacy, do they? Well, dead ones don't, surely.

ijuin wrote:Meh .... Google Glass specifically doesn't add much [to the cell phone] ... beyond the physical format ...

Well, it does free up the hand that is always fondling it and fiddling with the cell phone. Remember what happened when we apes started to walk upright? That's right: it freed up two hands. Now we get one back!

Hmmm. Hover-chairs would potentially free up four hands. But before we rush to blithely accept hover-chairs, perhaps ... well, you know the rest.
Last edited by TimXCampbell on Wed May 22, 2013 2:59 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

Gumbril
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Gumbril » Wed May 22, 2013 2:29 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote: there's nothing unhealthy about assuming there must be some downsides to a technology whose backers have a vested financial interest in its universal adoption.


Sure, you can think about it, but implicit in the discussion is that you are also thinking about stopping the technology by force (aka "regulation"). And a lot of people with this mindset will of course reject any consideration of the consequences the implementation of social coercion as oldthink

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Dracomax » Wed May 22, 2013 2:56 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Before we rush to adopt steam power we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.

Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.

Well, steam power did end in global Climate change and Ozone depletion. Probably should have considered that consequence.
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 22, 2013 3:00 pm UTC

Dracomax wrote:Well, steam power did end in global Climate change and Ozone depletion. Probably should have considered that consequence.
But it started the path to ending *slave labor so it balances out. And then Climate Change is something more technology will fix and as it creates different problems we will solve those.

TimXCampbell wrote:I'm waiting until they develop NeoCortiGoogle (i.e. an interface direct to the neocortex). That's just a few steps away from a global hive mind and the end of war ... and privacy, of course. Apes don't need privacy, do they? Well, dead ones don't, surely.

ijuin wrote:Meh .... Google Glass specifically doesn't add much ... beyond the physical format ...

Might I remind you that it frees up the hand that is always fondling it and fiddling with it. Remember what happened when we started to walk upright? That's right: it freed up two hands.

Hmmm. Hover-chairs would potentially free up four hands. But before we rush to blithely accept hover-chairs, perhaps ... well, you know the rest.

All technology is designed to make things more efficient. What it is used for beyond that is irrelevant. Efficiency is all that matters and efficiency is what people are afraid of.

Apple had the first smart phone but they don't own the market anymore. Monopolies just aren't stable in today's environment.
Google glasses will have competitors pop up; I'm planning on gutting a few old phones and buying some OLED glass with the help of a friend to build my own setup eventually. An android operating system and some "borrowed" voice recognition software should do the trick software wise.


*free but essentially slave conditions
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Dracomax » Wed May 22, 2013 3:13 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Might I remind you that it frees up the hand that is always fondling it and fiddling with it. Remember what happened when we started to walk upright? That's right: it freed up two hands.

Hmmm. Hover-chairs would potentially free up four hands. But before we rush to blithely accept hover-chairs, perhaps ... well, you know the rest.

All technology is designed to make things more efficient. What it is used for beyond that is irrelevant. Efficiency is all that matters and efficiency is what people are afraid of.

Apple had the first smart phone but they don't own the market anymore. Monopolies just aren't stable in today's environment.
Google glasses will have competitors pop up; I'm planning on gutting a few old phones and buying some OLED glass with the help of a friend to build my own setup eventually. An android operating system and some "borrowed" voice recognition software should do the trick software wise.


*free but essentially slave conditions[/quote]
That's just not true. Many people are afraid of technologies for reasons that have nothing to do with efficiency. Also, not all technology is about doing things more efficent. sometimes it's about doing something new, or finding a way to make something possible.

Personally, I think any change should be considered for the possible consequenses. not all change is good, and not all technologies should be embraced without reservations. If time travel were ever found to be possible, building a Time machine that didn't reset itself might not be something we should embrace. The Nuclear weapon has done far more evil than good over its lifetime. Facebook is going to make politics very interesting in the next 50 years. Fiction is full of sentient AI that turn against its creator.

I'm not saying that no technologies should be advanced, or even that all technologies should not eventually be developed, simply that it isn't unreasonable to say that we should consider the impact and potential for societal, environmental, and moral implications of a technology before unleashing it and adopting it on a wide scale. It's a lot harder to put a genie into the bottle than to get it out, and developing cures for the problems technology create can be more difficult than creating the initial tech. The optimal solution would be to release a solution to the problems caused by the tech at the same time as the tech itself--in the case of google glass, a device that automatically blurs your face/distorts your voice, for instance.
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

User avatar
ModestMouse
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ModestMouse » Wed May 22, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Barstro wrote:
billybobfred wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Nope, this argument is just a fancy way of taking the "change is bad" and "technology is soulless" approach.

Isn't that the joke?


But that's not the joke. The joke is; here's a sentence to remember for when you don't know what you are talking about.

And saying "let's think about this" is not the same as "change is bad". It means, simply, "let's think about this". The steam engine was putting an awful lot of pressure in something that could easily explode. Taking the time to think about it is what allowed people to design boilers and engines to work safely.


Nah, the sentence is exactly what people who don't know what they're talking about are always saying when a new technology pops up. Sometimes they may have a point, but usually it's just ignorance speaking.


Not necessarily. The controversy is not with the technology or the innovation. Sometimes humans want to interact with humans, not compete with Google Glass or Smart Phones. Humans need to unplug sometimes, generate their own thoughts, or concentrate at the task at hand.

Coincidentally, at this very moment, I can overhear some admins the next aisle over discussing the social challenges of smart devices.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 22, 2013 3:38 pm UTC

Dracomax wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
TimXCampbell wrote:
Might I remind you that it frees up the hand that is always fondling it and fiddling with it. Remember what happened when we started to walk upright? That's right: it freed up two hands.

Hmmm. Hover-chairs would potentially free up four hands. But before we rush to blithely accept hover-chairs, perhaps ... well, you know the rest.

All technology is designed to make things more efficient. What it is used for beyond that is irrelevant. Efficiency is all that matters and efficiency is what people are afraid of.

Apple had the first smart phone but they don't own the market anymore. Monopolies just aren't stable in today's environment.
Google glasses will have competitors pop up; I'm planning on gutting a few old phones and buying some OLED glass with the help of a friend to build my own setup eventually. An android operating system and some "borrowed" voice recognition software should do the trick software wise.


*free but essentially slave conditions

That's just not true. Many people are afraid of technologies for reasons that have nothing to do with efficiency. Also, not all technology is about doing things more efficent. sometimes it's about doing something new, or finding a way to make something possible.

Personally, I think any change should be considered for the possible consequenses. not all change is good, and not all technologies should be embraced without reservations. If time travel were ever found to be possible, building a Time machine that didn't reset itself might not be something we should embrace. The Nuclear weapon has done far more evil than good over its lifetime. Facebook is going to make politics very interesting in the next 50 years. Fiction is full of sentient AI that turn against its creator.

I'm not saying that no technologies should be advanced, or even that all technologies should not eventually be developed, simply that it isn't unreasonable to say that we should consider the impact and potential for societal, environmental, and moral implications of a technology before unleashing it and adopting it on a wide scale. It's a lot harder to put a genie into the bottle than to get it out, and developing cures for the problems technology create can be more difficult than creating the initial tech. The optimal solution would be to release a solution to the problems caused by the tech at the same time as the tech itself--in the case of google glass, a device that automatically blurs your face/distorts your voice, for instance.


Virtually all technology is an advancement of a previous technology. Historically weapons developments have been about getting things to move fast enough to put holes in other people. Gunpowder doesn't behave at all in the same way as a taut string but it achieves the same ends in a more feasible manner.

The atomic bomb kills people faster, Facebook allows more integrated communication. Efficiency. People see their respective efficiency as the bringer of the apocalypse and the breakdown of western culture.
And to the atomic claim I find that very hard to believe, it was only use as a weapon twice and only when a monopoly was held on them. Some of the natives in the areas they were tested had birth defects but most have received reparations. Nuclear weapons have such the lovely ability to keep large countries that possess them from going to war with each other. And peaceful nuclear technology that has resulted from the development have allowed us fission power and may eventually grant us fusion.

Lets ignore science fiction for the moment with the currently impossible time travel, and the highly unlikely AI rebellion.
How about another example, Fritz Haber created the Haber process allowing for industrial production of nitrates. It was the whole reason Germany could fight WW1, England and France were still getting their nitrates from bat poop in Argentina.
Nitrates have 2 uses: bombs and fertilizer. The first use is responsible for a few million deaths, the second use is responsible for billions not starving to death. The fertilizer has some other downsides like nitrogen burn and runoff that pollutes water but it bridged the gap from then until now as we are developing more sustainable agricultural practices involving composting, bio engineered crops, ect.

And it's very hard to have a solution ready for problems that may arise from something new because:
A, we can't accurately predict how society will implement said new thing.
and B, it takes time for the problems to crop up.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Cervisiae Amatorem
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Cervisiae Amatorem » Wed May 22, 2013 4:17 pm UTC

Well I had to google blithely.

The human tendency is to push everything as far as possible, to self destruction and beyond. Name one thing in the history of mankind that people kept in moderation. Weapons? Sex? Drugs? Alcohol? Video games? Religion? Imperialism? Food? Speed boats?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby rmsgrey » Wed May 22, 2013 4:51 pm UTC

Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:Well I had to google blithely.

The human tendency is to push everything as far as possible, to self destruction and beyond. Name one thing in the history of mankind that people kept in moderation. Weapons? Sex? Drugs? Alcohol? Video games? Religion? Imperialism? Food? Speed boats?


moderation.

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Moose Anus » Wed May 22, 2013 4:52 pm UTC

Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:Well I had to google blithely.

The human tendency is to push everything as far as possible, to self destruction and beyond. Name one thing in the history of mankind that people kept in moderation. Weapons? Sex? Drugs? Alcohol? Video games? Religion? Imperialism? Food? Speed boats?
Goat bologna.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1040
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Coyne » Wed May 22, 2013 4:55 pm UTC

Maybe before we rush to adopt language we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Wed May 22, 2013 4:59 pm UTC

Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:The human tendency is to push everything as far as possible, to self destruction and beyond. Name one thing in the history of mankind that people kept in moderation. Weapons? Sex? Drugs? Alcohol? Video games? Religion? Imperialism? Food? Speed boats?


Yeah, mankind destroys itself (and beyond) almost every week these days. Frankly, it's getting a little predictable and boring. For one I'd like to have a few days without the damn mankind destroying itself yet again.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 22, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:The human tendency is to push everything as far as possible, to self destruction and beyond. Name one thing in the history of mankind that people kept in moderation. Weapons? Sex? Drugs? Alcohol? Video games? Religion? Imperialism? Food? Speed boats?


Yeah, mankind destroys itself (and beyond) almost every week these days. Frankly, it's getting a little predictable and boring. For one I'd like to have a few days without the damn mankind destroying itself yet again.

Regardless, the downsides of any advancement are not the "hubris" every fiction writer tries to talk about. They just want to be seen as the enlightened prophets in the unlikely event that we break our 10k year streak of jerry-rigging fixes and actually do screw up beyond repair.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 22, 2013 6:56 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:All technology is designed to make things more efficient. What it is used for beyond that is irrelevant. Efficiency is all that matters and efficiency is what people are afraid of.
Only if you're redefining "efficiency" so broadly that it becomes essentially meaningless. Or, I suppose, if you decide to ignore literally 95% of the stuff new technology does, especially for the fear side of your claim.

People aren't worried about Glass because it will make browsing the Internet more efficient. They worry that it will further isolate us from the people around us as well as perhaps leading people to drive even more dangerously than they already do with phones. People don't fear nuclear power because of how efficient it is, and that's also unlikely to be why they fear fusion power, if or when that becomes practical.

In any case the point, as already explained, isn't that the technology shouldn't be developed, but simply that we should be thinking about the possible unintended consequences that might come along with it.

And that is most certainly an attitude I can get behind, since there will always be pollyannas on the other side who naively assume that everything will be fine, or that we can technology ourselves out of any problems that do crop up.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

sonar1313
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby sonar1313 » Wed May 22, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And that is most certainly an attitude I can get behind, since there will always be pollyannas on the other side who naively assume that everything will be fine, or that we can technology ourselves out of any problems that do crop up.

Or that if it's new it must be better and therefore should be adopted, which I think is the extant flipside to the comic (and why the response pilloried in the comic is legitimate when in response to such equally over-broad worldviews.)

lgw
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby lgw » Wed May 22, 2013 8:13 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:In any case the point, as already explained, isn't that the technology shouldn't be developed, but simply that we should be thinking about the possible unintended consequences that might come along with it.

And that is most certainly an attitude I can get behind, since there will always be pollyannas on the other side who naively assume that everything will be fine, or that we can technology ourselves out of any problems that do crop up.


I'm quite conservative about new technologies, but really "thinking about the possible unintended consequences that might come along with it" except to answer the question "should I buy this" is pointless. It's always going to steam engine when it's steam engine time. Throughout history, societies adopt that which makes them more efficient, or get conquered by neighbors who have (or, perhaps more gently, have "black ships" sail into harbor and explain that it's steam engine time now, like it or not). If you see a problem, you can feel good about not being part of the problem, but that's really it.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

JimsMaher
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby JimsMaher » Wed May 22, 2013 9:50 pm UTC

Consider the consequences? Sounds like a delaying tactic ... or a developer fishing for ideas.

Either way, I'm skeptical of your intentions. Explain yourself!

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ucim » Wed May 22, 2013 11:07 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Efficiency is all that matters and efficiency is what people are afraid of.
Efficiency is not all that matters. It's also important to consider just what we are being efficient about, wouldn't you say? Yes, people can choose to use technology or not, but people can't choose to have other people not use technology against them.

Dracomax wrote:The optimal solution would be to release a solution to the problems caused by the tech at the same time as the tech itself--in the case of google glass, a device that automatically blurs your face/distorts your voice, for instance.
That's not even the worst part of google glass. Right now a casual glance at a sensitive document is of little concern, but with google glass, that casual glance becomes a permanent record for whoever wants it. My house is full of potentially sensitive documents that I don't run and hide when I have acquaintances over. With google glass, that would all change. That would change social interactions in a way that is probably not good, but that I would be loath to predict.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Palpatineli
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:07 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Palpatineli » Thu May 23, 2013 12:14 am UTC

Yupa wrote:Maybe before we rush to adopt pithy sentences from XKCD, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.

Maybe before we rush to adopt recursion, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby brenok » Thu May 23, 2013 12:24 am UTC

Palpatineli wrote:
Yupa wrote:Maybe before we rush to adopt pithy sentences from XKCD, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.

Maybe before we rush to adopt recursion, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.


Maybe before we rush to adopt recursion, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and

huangho
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:43 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby huangho » Thu May 23, 2013 1:53 am UTC

So, it has come to this.

User avatar
thesingingaccountant
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:18 pm UTC
Location: My trusty tablet, most likely

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby thesingingaccountant » Thu May 23, 2013 1:58 am UTC

brenok wrote:
Palpatineli wrote:
Yupa wrote:Maybe before we rush to adopt pithy sentences from XKCD, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.

Maybe before we rush to adopt recursion, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this comic such a central position in our lives.


Maybe before we rush to adopt recursion, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving recursion such a central position in our lives and


Stack overflow.
Never trust a psychic who has to reschedule.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AluisioASG and 24 guests