click here to skip the menu and go to the page content

rebecca's pocket

about / archive / syndicate

.: July 2007 --> How uses, not innovations, drive human technology

How uses, not innovations, drive human technology

» New Yorker: What Else Is New? How uses, not innovations, drive human technology. So far up my alley, and absolutely fascinating. (via br)
 [ 07.19.07 ]


This New Yorker Article is the perfect illustration of my idea, which is presented here These new technologies – just as it was perfectly pointed out in that article, enlarge human capacities to reorganize and to transform the surrounding reality. However is human being ready to meet that “Word-transformer” power? Simu;taneysly this process can be neither reversed nor stopped. I don’t thing that you or the article author would be ready to shift from that highly technologized kitchen to a Stone Age Cave, that natural, that “close to nature”, may be that cozy one, with just wonderful deer skin across the entrance on the left from the fireplace. J
Nobody could expect it.
Today life got much easier, though it may be harder psychologically – all those rushing crowds, running businesses etc, and to that permanent wish to stay “on the top”, to be the same rushing leader - so despite all that jazz the everyday life got much easier, taking less physical efforts. Recently I watched a British documentary (I think the BBC one that was) dedicated to day-by-day life of one English family about one hundred years ago – right before the 1 World War. Just the most common middle class family from some rural area that was. If you were watching it you’d wonder how the day-by-day life had changed since that time! There was no electricity – so no house maintenance tolls, The simplest clothes washing took the whole day! – that time the female life took many efforts indeed. Not like the today one. No radio, no tv – books and newspaper or female gossips or… music.
However the gossips had survived since that time…
So the life got much easier, but the human psychology had hardly changed a lot – though some changes one can hardly deny.
Modern young people accept this modern life conditions as natural, forever ones – they just fail fancying that it COULD be otherwise. But this easy, “inborn” accepting makes them forgetting that the very achieving of that level took many efforts sometime. And so is its maintaining. But since they pay no efforts in everyday life, they deny paying any of them for that life level maintaining at all (sure I mean no money or any single person life, but the life of the society, commune in the whole)
The well-being person would hardly like to be disturbed, more so if it can change almost nothing. That person would rather shut from information of that sort. That is the reason the CNN reports are so burning, so harsh. I could hardly watch them. I wonder who is able?
But at the same time they are stirring up the sympathy to those suffering people. Sympathy is the strongest primal human emotion, almost as strong as hunger or sexual desire(though the latter are stronger, especially the first :-)
Ok, then people full of that sympathy Run to help these suffering people. It’s rather good, I’d say. But one part is always forgotten. Any lifestyle change would be sustainable ONLY in case it affect some human psychology change and that society management mechanism too. And that could be done only through this
Well that was too long text for me, as you may see, the English is not my native, so I’m ending it up. Besides I’m not sure I was convincing enough.

re; wittgenstein

don't look for meaning. look for use



» primary link / supplemental information / internal link

my book

» the weblog handbook
amazon editors' best of 2002, digital culture

recent posts