Technology and civil society

What's Sup Forums's stance on the effect that technology (specifically computers) has on society? Is it entirely positive, entirely negative, positive overall? Negative overall? What is the proper involvement of computers and technology in daily society, and what level of buy-in should be encouraged for someone to engage with the larger society?

Negative overall, I think we are shifting towards it as a more used communication way than the usual talk.
It's a bit sad to be honest, but maybe by chance it's more productive? I honestly don't know.
I am fearing a society going hivemind style.

I'm worried about that as well. Humans are very easily to manipulate when it comes to social pressure (it's so effective people think it's their own idea), so when you have people connected at all times to such a machine, it makes sense that they'll begin to coalesce.

What do you think is the optimal level of connectivity, and in what manner?

I think the optimal level of connectivity is when you are actively able to judge when you spend your time behind such devices and decide to seek other ways to connect to people (In my case, skating)
You shouldn't be dependent on something like that, but you could see it as a addition as a extension of your reaches to connect to places on the world normally hard to communicate with.

You have a point about social pressure, it's in our nature. And manipulating this will be anything but beneficial.

But I don't think we should banish it either, just control what and how we use it.
Not that the controlling part can be taken over by third parties to use it to their advantage.

I think the largest problem is that these things have a level of adoption whereby to then not become part of it will leave you behind. There's a limit, of course–you can't just say apply for a job and have not even a telephone. But increasingly it's considered essential (they say "preferred" at the moment, but that's always the foot in the door, like when degrees were "preferred") to have a social media presence, a mobile phone, and if you apply for a job you need expensive Microsoft Word to produce a C.V., since most people are unaware of the alternatives.

The issue is that this isn't an addition to their offline lives, but rather a replacement. I think this is an element of the stress a lot of people feel these days, where it all seems so much. So many bills to pay to so many things, just to get by.

Wow a thread where discussions are actually civil and smart. Nice going.
I feel that technology is dividing and makes people less aware of their own situation (as opposed to what other people are doing). Makes it harder to be "human" - whatever vague definition you use for that.
People are certainly more productive but that only benefits the employer, not the employees. If employees are more efficient they'll get more work to do, not more free time.

It initially was intended to be a addition but the current society managed to turn it into a replacement, and unconsciously making the rest obsolete.
It takes alot less effort just spending time behind such devices to maintain your social life instead of having to plan activities and having to make coffee for a evening of socializing.
Because why would you possible go through all that trouble if it's all at your fingertits(tm)

I totally agree with you that this adaptation, essentially and depreciation trend actually is starting to be it's own huge problem too.
I myself managed to wiggle some alternatives into my workspace with agreements by the others.
The problems with these alternatives is actually explaining your reason to why on earth you prefer it over the industry standard.
I've had my job before social media became "preferred", but I think it'll hit me as a train if I need to apply without any social media connections.
And these companies do this on purpose, make everything proprietary so you HAVE to buy it and give them your money.
Giving no chance for any alternatives on the same level as the Official Standard(tm).
And there is not alot people can do while staying in the safe area of laws when it comes to software alternatives, since it's so easily excusable of violating copyrights.

Tech is entirely negative
Because humans abuse everything. We are killing ourselves. This is the collapse of humanity. Social media kills from a young age, depression anxiety etc are rising. The society and civilization that has existed since Jesus died will collapse due to lack of self control.

> makes people less aware of their own situation

Also the world around them. Were they to look away (or be forced to look away) from their screens they'd see that there's litter on the street, paint on walls is cracked and peeling, windows have been smashed, and there's chewing gum and cigarette butts on the side-walk. Obviously I'm talking about this from a semi-symbolic standpoint, but I do think that the imaginary digital world (remember "cyberspace"?) serves as a distraction from this. How can things around me be so bad, if I still have access to all this entertainment?

And I agree on the point about productivity. IIRC there was a chart that showed the increase in profits compared to the "increase" in wages, and showed that despite the rise in productivity nothing benefited the people creating that product. It's almost counter-productive to work hard and knuckle down, since all that will happen is you'll be given more work to do.

It adda onto the advance of the west and the collapse of knowledge though. Tech speeds up what would happen because of ignorance and lack of control.
Either we will end up dead or like 1984, but it will be one or the other

People with addictive personalities will always find something to be addicted to, before computers/smartphones you just had the couch potatoes who would sit in front of the TV for 12 hours a day. The overall effect of computer and communications technology on the human race is undeniably overwhelmingly positive. You're thinking on too small a scale if you think otherwise, the world is bigger than western teenagers looking at their phones.

positive overall. without computers you wouldn't be able to board a plane and fly to anywhere in the world, have working traffic lights that optimize waiting times based on time of day and number of cars, GPS, cell phones that allow people to make calls all around the world which stimulates the economy, and so on.

...

You might be right, but this is still worth some concern, don't you think?

The printing press killed society

Regarding this point I feel there is a lot of misuse of technology. I mean we wear on our wrists technology that would make the mainframes of old feel ashamed. Yet most money in tech is made from ridiculous fart apps and vanity social media. Also expensive iStuff that serves more as status symbols than actual useful instruments. In this regard I have respect for companies like IBM doing research in things like block chain, quantum computing, so on, but most companies are like Facebook, Snapchat and Apple. Just a way to give the masses the circus they need, fulfill their needs for self-validation.

>would sit in front of the TV for 12 hours a day

Far less would do that than spend hours and hours on their smartphone or computer. And because they were a minority it becomes an opt-in situation.

> The overall effect of computer and communications technology on the human race is undeniably overwhelmingly positive.
Maybe, but do you think we've passed the point of diminishing returns in terms of its cost (monetary and social) and the benefit it provides?

This point has been made hundreds of times but it's ridiculous. Sure, people read the newspaper on their morning commute. What else is there to do? But nobody used to just pop a newspaper out of their bag on a date or at the dinner table and " just check something real quick".
Also I don't think highschool students used to read the newspaper instead of paying attention in class.

That's just a part of post-industrialisation society. The proles need these distractions to keep them docile and productivity up, you can't get rid of them without a radical shift in the way society is organised. Comics, radio, TV, film, social media, it's all the same stuff.

This is really what this thread is about. Where is the limit of acceptability in regards to technology's presence in our daily lives?

I do wonder if it were the case that people continued to (culturally) see computers as tools, what a modern PC would look like. A word processor, or a typesetter (even a basic one like nroff), is so much more powerful than a typewriter in terms of layout, presentation, and ability to edit and produce multiple copies; same applies with digital spreadsheets. But they're a minimal part of what is expected of a computer, so much so that were it the case that a writer (for example) had nothing on his computer but a TUI and a text editor, people would almost see that as a waste, unless he had a more powerful "useful" PC elsewhere.

A computer dedicated to writing would be small, with a great keyboard and battery life. But it wouldn't be the only thing that matters in your hypothetical society. Computers would still be needed for simulations, advanced math, medicine and so on. The problem isn't the hardware itself though.

>Computers would still be needed for simulations, advanced math, medicine and so on.

But people wouldn't need a computer that is powerful enough for these things in their home.

True. Most of what we today call "consumer" computers would likely be much less powerful and concentrated more on productivity and less on performance or looking pretty. Battery life would be through the roof though.

It is strange how environmentalists and green campaigners never approach this aspect. I wonder how much electricity modern computing, the internet, etc. consumes as a global percentage and how much of that is entertainment and bloat.

Primitivists could be argued to be environmentalists and getting rid of all technology is their thing. Though most of them are batshit insane.