Is the 21st century the age of information technology, or the age of addiction?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, FourCrossedWands said:

Good move

It's hard to tell.

[FourCrossedWands]

It's always good to be out of speculative assets, good for health at least.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

We are first and foremost in the age of neo feudalism and I mean it literaly. You own next to nothing and you live to work pretty much. That's your average human nowadays

[Fearey]

It's funny to me when people complain about technology making them addicted, taking no accountability for their own choices. Everything is someone else's fault.

To anyone thinking like this, I invite a very quick and effective practice of gratitude. Do some research into how people were living 100, or 1000 years ago and compare their everyday lives to your own. Hopefully that'll make you stop feeling so sorry for yourself, and not take all the luxuries you have for granted.

This rapid technological growth also seems to demand an equally rapid developmental growth among the peoples of the world. It seems virtually everyone has some kind of mental health issue nowadays. Mental stability is no longer the norm, it's an extreme outlier in modern society. It doesn't have to be this way, of course, but most people are either lazy or cowardice, too complacent or too afraid to challenge themselves and enact growth.

It might not be entirely by chance that it is this way. A mentally deficient and dependent populous is far easier to control, and far less likely to rebel against the powers that be.

Edited January 3 by Fearey

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

16 hours ago, Fearey said:

It's funny to me when people complain about technology making them addicted, taking no accountability for their own choices. Everything is someone else's fault.

But it is literaly constructed and wired in such a way to make you addicted, literaly. This is an undisputable fact. And the only reason for that is capitalism and an endless chase of profit.

16 hours ago, Fearey said:

To anyone thinking like this, I invite a very quick and effective practice of gratitude. Do some research into how people were living 100, or 1000 years ago and compare their everyday lives to your own. Hopefully that'll make you stop feeling so sorry for yourself, and not take all the luxuries you have for granted.

People 1000 years ago lived a better life than an average human today in some metrics. Search for yourself if you don't believe me.

16 hours ago, Fearey said:

This rapid technological growth also seems to demand an equally rapid developmental growth among the peoples of the world. It seems virtually everyone has some kind of mental health issue nowadays. Mental stability is no longer the norm, it's an extreme outlier in modern society. It doesn't have to be this way, of course, but most people are either lazy or cowardice, too complacent or too afraid to challenge themselves and enact growth.

It doesn't matter what "rapid developmental growth" you're going to do, whatever that means. If you are literaly in a competition with a whole world while trying to find a job, house prices and rents are ungodly high and rising of wages can barely cover inflation, or not even that. "Laziness and cowardice" are at this point boomer talking points. Just complete brainwashing

16 hours ago, Fearey said:

It might not be entirely by chance that it is this way. A mentally deficient and dependent populous is far easier to control, and far less likely to rebel against the powers that be.

There is no conspiracy. It's just capitalism at play, plain and simple.

[Jodistrict]

17 hours ago, Fearey said:

It's funny to me when people complain about technology making them addicted, taking no accountability for their own choices. Everything is someone else's fault.

Try living without a smartphone.   There are businesses you can't even interact with without an app.   Your choice is really no choice at all.  

[Fearey]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

Try living without a smartphone.   There are businesses you can't even interact with without an app.   Your choice is really no choice at all.  

It is entirely possible to have and actively use a smartphone, while simultaneously shielding yourself from most distractions. You just have to put in some effort in setting up a system that works for you.

Learning more about how companies trick our brains to release dopamine on certain triggers to maximize screen time will also make you better able to counteract this for yourself.

I'd recommend the book Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport. Great read.

[Basman]

@NewKidOnTheBlock Addictive design is primarily a feature of social media. Unless you think social media fundamentally define our current age then it wouldn't really be accurate to say that addiction defines this period we live in.

While the economy, especially the job market, could be better your taking for granted just how well you have it today. People in the past have lived through extreme poverty (couldn't afford a loaf of bread) and war less than a 100 years ago. Even during an economic recession you are living more comfortably than a medieval king.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

Unless you think social media fundamentally define our current age then it wouldn't really be accurate to say that addiction defines this period we live in.

This sounds like a bit of a strawman, althought OP made that argument, I don't personally think "age of addition" would be a good full encompassing term for the age we are currently living in.

38 minutes ago, Basman said:

People in the past have lived through extreme poverty (couldn't afford a loaf of bread) and war less than a 100 years ago.

Which specific era of history do you have in mind while comparing our time to an X time in the past? "Less than 100 years ago" means what? WW2, Great Depression? Human history travers constantly from times of prosperity and peace to times of war and death and then back to peace. The only constant of history that doesn't behave like a crypto chart is our technological progress during the last 200 years or so.

49 minutes ago, Basman said:

Even during an economic recession you are living more comfortably than a medieval king.

Do you honestly know that tho, or is it just a catchy phrase you have memorized? Especially this one with our lives being better than a medieval king, seems easy to remember. You do realize a king owned literaly A WHOLE ASS KINGDOM LOL we can't even own our little petty boxes we call appartments and homes. King could do whatever and whenever pretty much as long as it didn't piss off his nobility (and therefore the army) or neighbouring kingdoms. We on the other hand can't even piss off our coworkers because they could notify your boss and suddenly that little wage would be in danger LOL

In fact, medieval peasant lives are pretty competitive to ours in this regard, if you trully look at the stats. Better than medieval kings? Quite a stretch LOL

[FourCrossedWands]

There are various reasons why today's living standards are much better than the living standards 500 years ago.

Products are exponentially cheaper to made, but the quality sucks. We are living surrounded by plastics and dangerous chemicals, while people 500 years ago were surrounded by wood, leather, wool, etc.

Food is extremely cheap to produce, but the quality sucks. People 500 years ago couldn't afford food, but it was all 100% organic.

Most western countries have very high living standards, but it's mostly at the expense of poor living standards of other countries.

Loans that can never be paid.

etc.

 

[Fearey]

2 hours ago, FourCrossedWands said:

Products are exponentially cheaper to made, but the quality sucks. We are living surrounded by plastics and dangerous chemicals, while people 500 years ago were surrounded by wood, leather, wool, etc.

At the end of the day, the consumer dictates what gets produced. If the only thing that goes through ones mind (as with most people) is the end price being as low as possible, the quality has to decline over time. In order for prices to keep dropping, costs have to be lowered. This is not the result of a broken system, greedy capitalists or anything else. It's the consumer pushing the quality down because of their priorities.

That's not to say all products are of low quality. I bought a pair of thick leather shoes meant to last a lifetime 4.5 years ago. They look just like when I first got them, and they'll probably last the rest of my life. Were they expensive? $500 divided by, lets say 55 years, me being 25 when I bought them, assuming I will remain active until I'm 80, which might be a bit optimistic. That's a little over $9 per year.

Now compare that to what most people do. Buying low quality items that break or is significantly reduced in usability within a year or two. Products that not only end up costing a lot more in total, but are vastly inferior in quality. Following this, they end up with wardrobes full of garbage quality items that never gets used, collecting dust until they are inevitably thrown away.

Not that that's a problem in and of itself. Consumerism is the glue that keeps the economy going

[Twentyfirst]

Its the age of AQUARIUS 

[FourCrossedWands]

2 hours ago, Fearey said:

a pair of thick leather shoes meant to last a lifetime

Yes, that's a good approach. I have been buying durable wool socks with a lifetime warranty (Darn Tough). They are expensive, but will save me money in the long run. Also, much more ecological.

[Javfly33]

17 hours ago, Fearey said:

At the end of the day, the consumer dictates what gets produced. If the only thing that goes through ones mind (as with most people) is the end price being as low as possible, the quality has to decline over time. In order for prices to keep dropping, costs have to be lowered. This is not the result of a broken system, greedy capitalists or anything else. It's the consumer pushing the quality down because of their priorities.

That's not to say all products are of low quality. I bought a pair of thick leather shoes meant to last a lifetime 4.5 years ago. They look just like when I first got them, and they'll probably last the rest of my life. Were they expensive? $500 divided by, lets say 55 years, me being 25 when I bought them, assuming I will remain active until I'm 80, which might be a bit optimistic. That's a little over $9 per year.

Now compare that to what most people do. Buying low quality items that break or is significantly reduced in usability within a year or two. Products that not only end up costing a lot more in total, but are vastly inferior in quality. Following this, they end up with wardrobes full of garbage quality items that never gets used, collecting dust until they are inevitably thrown away.

Not that that's a problem in and of itself. Consumerism is the glue that keeps the economy going

Well said.

19 hours ago, FourCrossedWands said:

 

Food is extremely cheap to produce, but the quality sucks. People 500 years ago couldn't afford food, but it was all 100% organic.

 

Soil is degraded in an intense way now. 

Still in my country people working on agriculture are complaning about policies pro soil because it hurts their productivity.

I wonder how much they will complain when their children have nothing to eat because the soil is completely ruined.