I have to wonder why my parents are so desensitised to these advances. My father was born at the end of WW2, imagine all the things he has seen. Yet when I mention transhuman technologies and there potential impact, I expect excitement, instead at best I get shrugs or denial. I wonder what is going on there?
I wondered about that too, and I think your parents may have a point.
We humans have been into space, we landed on the moon, we built computers that destroy humans at chess, we have the entire Internet in our pocket, we have Avatar in the cinema and Crysis on our computers, we read genes, we created synthetic life, we print transplantable bladders and blood vessels, we have self-driving cars, and we mass-produce transistors just 220 hydrogen atoms wide—but so what?
People died of cancer in 1960, and they still do.
Drunk drivers ran over people in 1960, and they still do.
There was violent crime in 1960, and it’s still here.
Politicians were inefficient and corrupt in 1960, and they still are.
To normal people (like your parents and many of my normal friends), an ordinary human life essentially remains the same no matter how drastically human technology improves. Birth, childhood (good or bad), school with friendships and bullies, marriage, nine-to-five job, retirement, grandchildren, death.
Perhaps this is what’s going on with your parents—and with a lot of my “normal” friends and coworkers.
But a cancer diagnosis means expensive treatment then more years of life, not near-certain death.
But there are fewer car accidents now (depending on where you are), and driverless cars might change that.
But there’s much less crime now.
But revolutions spread like whoa now, because the media’s fast.
Also, your scale is tiny. There were very few deaths by cancer when lifespans were short in the days before farming. There were no drunk drivers in 1800. There were no corrupt politicians in bands of < 150 people. There was no school for most people in 800. There were no 9-to-5 jobs in 1900 when we were all farmers. Long enough to explain a mistake, not to prove a point.
(actually “Yes”, “Yes”, “Not in Russia”, and “Yes, but they ruin countries in result”)
… but normals just don’t get that. The scale I gave an example of is a scale of many normal people I know. They don’t appreciate antibiotics, phones and electricity—they take it all for granted. Their life expectancy from 200 years ago is totally irrelevant to their everyday life.
(Prediction: Russia will come around in < 50 years
Revolutions help because you threaten politicians with them so they cooperate, actually doing them sucks but you have to to keep the precommitment believable.)
I agree they don’t get it. But they don’t have a point, they’re making the common mistake of failing to learn from history. People are crazy, the world is mad.
Also, do they appreciate indoor plumbing? Much of my 1960′s-born family grew up without it, but they seem to consider it mundane now. What about cell phones?
(I’m no expert here, but based on my own observations, I’ve yet to see a country that benefited from a revolution—at least in the last decade. I may be wrong here, so any real data is welcome.)
I was without plumbing for several years as a teenager (1980s). Occasionally I marvel that I can use an automatic dishwasher instead of dipping up a pot from the rain barrel and heating it on the stove. It got mundane for me mighty quick though.
pretty much. Humans get used to new things amazingly fast. My family home got running water in the mid 80s, sewage and telephone in the 90s, central heating in the 00s. These days I get phones and netbooks for free and use them everywhere. My technology exposure curve was higher than common in the 90s, but it has evened out, and i am very used to all of the items I have. Living in the future is awesome!
No, I meant the opposite (well, I think some South American countries did, but I’m no expert and still ambivalent on the Chavez countercoup). A revolution actually happening is very bad. But the threat of a revolution keeps politicians in check; occasional revolutions are better than letting dictators run free because they know there won’t be one.
I would nominate as an example the French Restauration; after a series of revolutions, the restored French monarchy moved towards constitutionalism and generally more freedom.
Maybe their point isn’t “technology doesn’t provide any tangible benefits”, but “the scale of benefits that trickle down to us from technological advancements doesn’t match the (perceived) scale of these advancements”?
Also, do they appreciate indoor plumbing?
No, they take it for granted—and I’m afraid I’m guilty of this too. Strangely, cellphones and the Internet still amaze me, perhaps because I remember life without them.
Hmm, that just isn’t true. There isn’t a perfect match (indoor plumbing is low-tech with big benefits, I’ve seen really cool tech that’s useless out of tiny niches), but there’s a correlation (like, I could name five laser-based things you’ve used this week). There have been huge social changes (farming, literacy, urbanization, medicine, electric lighting, the Internet) due to technology.
They have more of a point about time scales. “Technology improves too slowly for us to benefit.” But that’s not so true since the industrial revolution, and completely false now.
If the Internet hasn’t changed their lives (it sure changed mine), and neither have cell phones or cheap TV or recent medical advances or new kinds of jobs or satellite TV that reports on revolutions in nearby countries, then at least they could have noticed that as it accelerates so does social change (you mean they don’t marry two black genderqueer atheists, either?).
I have to wonder why my parents are so desensitised to these advances. My father was born at the end of WW2, imagine all the things he has seen. Yet when I mention transhuman technologies and there potential impact, I expect excitement, instead at best I get shrugs or denial. I wonder what is going on there?
I wondered about that too, and I think your parents may have a point.
We humans have been into space, we landed on the moon, we built computers that destroy humans at chess, we have the entire Internet in our pocket, we have Avatar in the cinema and Crysis on our computers, we read genes, we created synthetic life, we print transplantable bladders and blood vessels, we have self-driving cars, and we mass-produce transistors just 220 hydrogen atoms wide—but so what?
People died of cancer in 1960, and they still do.
Drunk drivers ran over people in 1960, and they still do.
There was violent crime in 1960, and it’s still here.
Politicians were inefficient and corrupt in 1960, and they still are.
To normal people (like your parents and many of my normal friends), an ordinary human life essentially remains the same no matter how drastically human technology improves. Birth, childhood (good or bad), school with friendships and bullies, marriage, nine-to-five job, retirement, grandchildren, death.
Perhaps this is what’s going on with your parents—and with a lot of my “normal” friends and coworkers.
But a cancer diagnosis means expensive treatment then more years of life, not near-certain death.
But there are fewer car accidents now (depending on where you are), and driverless cars might change that.
But there’s much less crime now.
But revolutions spread like whoa now, because the media’s fast.
Also, your scale is tiny. There were very few deaths by cancer when lifespans were short in the days before farming. There were no drunk drivers in 1800. There were no corrupt politicians in bands of < 150 people. There was no school for most people in 800. There were no 9-to-5 jobs in 1900 when we were all farmers. Long enough to explain a mistake, not to prove a point.
Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes...
(actually “Yes”, “Yes”, “Not in Russia”, and “Yes, but they ruin countries in result”)
… but normals just don’t get that. The scale I gave an example of is a scale of many normal people I know. They don’t appreciate antibiotics, phones and electricity—they take it all for granted. Their life expectancy from 200 years ago is totally irrelevant to their everyday life.
(Prediction: Russia will come around in < 50 years
Revolutions help because you threaten politicians with them so they cooperate, actually doing them sucks but you have to to keep the precommitment believable.)
I agree they don’t get it. But they don’t have a point, they’re making the common mistake of failing to learn from history. People are crazy, the world is mad.
Also, do they appreciate indoor plumbing? Much of my 1960′s-born family grew up without it, but they seem to consider it mundane now. What about cell phones?
Any data to back this up?
(I’m no expert here, but based on my own observations, I’ve yet to see a country that benefited from a revolution—at least in the last decade. I may be wrong here, so any real data is welcome.)
I was without plumbing for several years as a teenager (1980s). Occasionally I marvel that I can use an automatic dishwasher instead of dipping up a pot from the rain barrel and heating it on the stove. It got mundane for me mighty quick though.
pretty much. Humans get used to new things amazingly fast. My family home got running water in the mid 80s, sewage and telephone in the 90s, central heating in the 00s. These days I get phones and netbooks for free and use them everywhere. My technology exposure curve was higher than common in the 90s, but it has evened out, and i am very used to all of the items I have. Living in the future is awesome!
No, I meant the opposite (well, I think some South American countries did, but I’m no expert and still ambivalent on the Chavez countercoup). A revolution actually happening is very bad. But the threat of a revolution keeps politicians in check; occasional revolutions are better than letting dictators run free because they know there won’t be one.
I would nominate as an example the French Restauration; after a series of revolutions, the restored French monarchy moved towards constitutionalism and generally more freedom.
Maybe their point isn’t “technology doesn’t provide any tangible benefits”, but “the scale of benefits that trickle down to us from technological advancements doesn’t match the (perceived) scale of these advancements”?
No, they take it for granted—and I’m afraid I’m guilty of this too. Strangely, cellphones and the Internet still amaze me, perhaps because I remember life without them.
Hmm, that just isn’t true. There isn’t a perfect match (indoor plumbing is low-tech with big benefits, I’ve seen really cool tech that’s useless out of tiny niches), but there’s a correlation (like, I could name five laser-based things you’ve used this week). There have been huge social changes (farming, literacy, urbanization, medicine, electric lighting, the Internet) due to technology.
They have more of a point about time scales. “Technology improves too slowly for us to benefit.” But that’s not so true since the industrial revolution, and completely false now.
If the Internet hasn’t changed their lives (it sure changed mine), and neither have cell phones or cheap TV or recent medical advances or new kinds of jobs or satellite TV that reports on revolutions in nearby countries, then at least they could have noticed that as it accelerates so does social change (you mean they don’t marry two black genderqueer atheists, either?).