[Speculation]

'The Shallows' By Nicholas Carr has a lot to say about how technology affects human behaviour.

There were scientific theories with some supporting evidence that certain parts of the human brain changed with the introduction of different technologies.

For instance, the part of the brain concerned with audial processing shrunk in exposed cultures after the introduction of the Gutenberg Press. At the same time, the brain's visual processing area increased in size as people moved from oral tradition to reading as a form of learning.

In modern times he points to the rise of the internet and the resulting decrease in memory and even reading comprehension as people get used to using Google for accessing facts. They also have trouble reading books because their minds adjust to quickly parsing internet pages and jumping from hyperlink to hyperlink. Deep comprehension decreases as minds are calibrated towards ingesting huge amounts of (less pertinent) information quite quickly through internet browsing.

From this book and similar books I've come to the conclusion that modern technology (particularly the internet/smartphones) is having a detrimental affect on relationships, communication skills, memory and mental health. I also think it leads to isolation and a destruction of cultural capital, which other political and ideological forces then exploit to their own ends.

I'm not a luddite by any means, but real life social interactions and limiting the misuse of technology is important to keep yourself mentally healthy.

[The Black Knight]

(09-16-2015 01:30 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The decline is simple, men stopped acting like men.

This. Political correctness, militant feminism, and weak disorganized men are the primary culprits to any kind of decline. If anything, I would argue that technology is helping reverse the decline. The rapid pace that information can be shared today allows for shifts in cultures to occur at a much quicker pace than in any other time in history. This forum is a proof of that. Think about how much you have learned from this forum and how long it would have taken without its existence. Many of us might not like to admit it, but A LOT of us would still be lost in blue pill hell if it wasn't for modern technology.

[QuietDog]

(10-12-2015 03:46 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 01:30 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The decline is simple, men stopped acting like men.

This. Political correctness, militant feminism, and weak disorganized men are the primary culprits to any kind of decline. If anything, I would argue that technology is helping reverse the decline. The rapid pace that information can be shared today allows for shifts in cultures to occur at a much quicker pace than in any other time in history. This forum is a proof of that. Think about how much you have learned from this forum and how long it would have taken without its existence. Many of us might not like to admit it, but A LOT of us would still be lost in blue pill hell if it wasn't for modern technology.

Damn good point

If it weren't for the internet I would still be fucked and have no idea why I wasn't getting what I wanted out of life. This forum and the internet in general helped me realize where I was going wrong in my own actions and what I needed to change to get the results I want. Pre-internet that kind of life-changing information was much harder to come by

[rudebwoy]

(10-12-2015 03:46 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 01:30 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The decline is simple, men stopped acting like men.

This. Political correctness, militant feminism, and weak disorganized men are the primary culprits to any kind of decline. If anything, I would argue that technology is helping reverse the decline. The rapid pace that information can be shared today allows for shifts in cultures to occur at a much quicker pace than in any other time in history. This forum is a proof of that. Think about how much you have learned from this forum and how long it would have taken without its existence. Many of us might not like to admit it, but A LOT of us would still be lost in blue pill hell if it wasn't for modern technology.

Majority of men are blue pill, I can preach to my friends until i am blue in the face and nothing will change. I have stories for days about beta friends who almost broke down due to women. Some of these guys sell and work in technology, how is that for irony.

Guys I know with the most game, who are red pill. They do not know much about technology, but they all have the DGAF attitude when it comes to women.

Technology has made man soft, men would rather play video games all day than go and get some ass. Sure the information is out there, but how many men access it.

[The Black Knight]

(10-12-2015 03:46 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:46 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 01:30 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The decline is simple, men stopped acting like men.

This. Political correctness, militant feminism, and weak disorganized men are the primary culprits to any kind of decline. If anything, I would argue that technology is helping reverse the decline. The rapid pace that information can be shared today allows for shifts in cultures to occur at a much quicker pace than in any other time in history. This forum is a proof of that. Think about how much you have learned from this forum and how long it would have taken without its existence. Many of us might not like to admit it, but A LOT of us would still be lost in blue pill hell if it wasn't for modern technology.

Majority of men are blue pill, I can preach to my friends until i am blue in the face and nothing will change. I have stories for days about beta friends who almost broke down due to women. Some of these guys sell and work in technology, how is that for irony.

Guys I know with the most game, who are red pill. They do not know much about technology, but they all have the DGAF attitude when it comes to women.

Technology has made man soft, men would rather play video games all day than go and get some ass. Sure the information is out there, but how many men access it.

All modern men in the western world have also been raised in a feminist era that pushes blue pill values down peoples throats constantly. It isn't realistic to expect someone to just 180 on their values right away without a significant event occurring.

Modern technology like the internet has allowed people who go through divorce rape/bad break up/false accusations/etc (people very vulnerable to changing their beliefs) to obtain fantastic life altering wisdom at a critical point in their respective lives. This is a relatively recent thing (how long has the manosphere existed? How long has the internet existed?) so it is going to take time to see change occur at a bigger level.

And with how shitty some US women are and the environment currently is, I really can't blame some men for just saying fuck it and playing some video games. Not everyone can be be converted from blue to red pill beliefs and I rather have those people occupied with mindless shit than getting all pissed off and blowing up a building or doing some crazy shit cause they can't get laid.

[Sombro]

(09-16-2015 01:30 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The decline is simple, men stopped acting like men.

More acutely, fathers stopped being fathers at some point.
The damage is long-term and the rot runs deep.

[nek]

I would argue that societal decline is mainly due to the removal of accountability, and technology is a means to facilitate that.

[pathoma]

An easy exercise is to try to think of the analogue equivalent of what technology does.

So for example, posting a photo album on facebook is comparable to printing out individual photo albums to all those facebook friends.

In this way technology acts as an accelerator of change.

Maybe some older heads on the board can share. Do you feel like we've seen more change over the last 10 years than the previous 10 before it?

[Bazzwaldo]

Technology has no friends or enemies, its just a momentum ergonomic to its users
Social decline has been witnessed by those who can see and some could argue thats its orchistrated by those who can benefit from the disharmony it manifests

[RexImperator]

A professor of mine mentioned how the development of power steering was a big factor in getting women off of the farm and out of the house. Prior to that cars were hard to steer for women. Going back even further, you had manual crank cars that could break your arm when starting. A lot of upper body strength required.

[RBerkley]

(09-27-2016 11:53 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

A professor of mine mentioned how the development of power steering was a big factor in getting women off of the farm and out of the house. Prior to that cars were hard to steer for women. Going back even further, you had manual crank cars that could break your arm when starting. A lot of upper body strength required.

Nowadays, many cars, even from the early 2000s models Toyotas have a tremendous amount of safety features like Anti-Lock braking system, front & side airbags, tailgate warnings, parking assistance, etc. that it makes it easier for women to drive.

If one were to drive a 1960s car today and end up in an accident, they would lack the safety features like airbags, crumple zones and interior frames designed to protect the occupants as compared to newer model cars.

Literally, a chick can dose off when driving 65mph on the freeway, and some cars will automatically enter into a mode where it will protect the driver from entering an accident by auto-piloting itself to the curb. Some newer model cars even have accelerating protecting in case one steps on the gas pedal too hard.

On the contrary, those newer model cars are only accessible to chicks in their 20s who get higher pay than men in their early 20s. On the contrary, I heard that newer model cars have a computer box which can be "hacked" into by 3-letter .gov agencies.

I'm not that knowledgable about computer diagnostics to find a solution to prevent .gov targeting of a newer model car's computer box.

[RBerkley]

It's not technology to blame, but it's a stage where the old system, which is mainly feministe, is fighting against the developments of technology. Huge difference.

Take for example the modern school teacher. The modern Western education system is completely inundated with mainly liberalized women, at the same time when Mc Donalds cashiers are being replaced with ATM-style Kiosks in other countries.

Replacing teachers who want to shove dildos up their asses using "Sexual Education" as an excuse with online education will lower education costs dramatically, but because of teacher unions, many teachers who don't deserve a 100k a year pay in countries such as Canada are preventing the automation of the teaching profession.

The same goes for college, which can completely be online rather than have campus harpies preaching "Wape Culture" and harassing men on campus. Textbooks will be way cheaper if a Commons Licence was provided rather than forcing students to pay on average 150$ per textbook to read up on the Vagina Monologues for the complusory General Education elective.

This brings up another point. While the female-dominated schools and colleges are spreading their agenda to demonize men, more men will opt out from that system only to find that technology is on the verge of automating minimum wage customer service jobs, leading to employment decline in men.

The Catch-22 is that if a man wants to work in the female-dominated system, he will be viewed as a suspect to molesting children, while the female teachers continue to permit 12-year-old boys to fuck them in the ass.

My argument is that technology will liberate men once the dinosaur, taxpayer-extorted, feminist-bureaucratic system is replaced with technology.

Sure that for now, the paper-pushing female professionals are taking selfies of their nakedness to display for little boys on Instagram and Snapchat, but all of that will come to an end when the economy resets due to technological unemployment which will reduce the tax revenues to pay for female-dominated government employment.

The female teacher earning 100k a year to show her tits to little kids from taxpayer money will have to show her naked ass on the street to earn money to eat when tax revenues are significantly decline.

[Sooth]

(09-27-2016 11:53 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

A professor of mine mentioned how the development of power steering was a big factor in getting women off of the farm and out of the house. Prior to that cars were hard to steer for women. Going back even further, you had manual crank cars that could break your arm when starting. A lot of upper body strength required.

Also, this is the reason that Electric cars were around and popular over 100 years ago.

Women didn't have to hand crank start them, they didn't need a man to fill them with fuel/oil and keep the motor running properly just to get you to the shops and back.

The reason they lost the race was the range was no where near as good a gasoline and we figured out how to start the gasoline engine with a button (I wonder if that guy got a thank you BJ - doubt it).

[Kid Twist]

Great thread, reminded me immediately of Kacyznski's thoughts. I think that as root cause, changing the Constitution and "liberating" society that led to all the damage, which is only exacerbated by technology (I think Kacynzski's point, it accelerates social change way beyond what tradition can even have a chance to control, if it even could), is due to the same reason why people have stupid, soft (feminine) policies towards people like murderous migrants: they have lost the value of how hard life can be and the value of struggle. Put another way, materialism and affluency, no matter what, will cause the general masses to look the other way (women vote, "why not?", people who believe different than us, "let's invent some egalitarian response to that too, they're the same as us").

What's the proof of this? Where societies have remained traditional, they are nowhere NEAR the affluency of what is now called the West. FSU, South/Central America, etc. They as a whole, are "3rd world" or, poor. Interesting that this gets you the most feminine, attractive women. But we all know why that is, already.

What my friend always said rings true, "When you have to find out how to eat the next day, how to survive, you don't have time to consider if you are XYZ gender or who is 'against you'."

To sum up: People have too much time on their hands. And they aren't productive. What did they always say about idle hands?

[Edmund Ironside]

(10-04-2015 12:26 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

The condom and the pill were major game changers.

Yeah, and the reduced need for physical ability in work over time that has reduced the natural advantage of men as earners. You didn't see a lot of traction for more women in workplaces when the workplaces were hard, dirty, dangerous physical labor. You didn't see a lot of traction for women in the military when war was a lot more low tech.

However, I would say "enabled" rather than "caused".

There are a lot of other factors, especially things like men simply being less organized. Also, though making fun of sociology degrees, etc, is pretty common and it seems logical that hard sciences are more useful and productive, since the most able men tend to leave social sciences to women and less masculine men, those social sciences are dominated by the wrong people, and that does matter over time. All of those women taking feminist studies that we laughed at are now a trained army of SJWs and the opposition to them tends to be part time and disorganized.

[Rob Banks]

(09-16-2015 07:20 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

A lot of people like to blame the liberals/the SJW's/Obama/Cultural Marxists, etc, for the decline in society, the standard of women, etc...and they would be mostly right, BUT I think nothing has been a greater force for the destruction of society than modern technology.

Let's pretend Republicans were the President since the 60's and you had had better immigration laws. You still would have had a spoiled boomer generation, and the rise of the smartphone and social media.

That's what's fucked up everything. In the 911 thread the OP says that society has declined more in 15 years than the previous thirty, and I would agree, but its because of the personal computer and personal cell phone.

This phenomenon has even effected the Muslim world. The vast majority of young Syrian men would much rather go to Europe while playing games on their cell phones than fight for their country.

Why? Because they see how much better life is on their phone, and find out about how to get there using the internet. Cell Phone's and computers have made everyone like a child.


This can't last can it? The millennial generation gets a lot of flack, there really are some great millennial's of every race, color, and creed, who, have got shit on by the way, and STILL rise above everything including less opportunity, young women who outearn on average them because of their pussies, bad ratios, and terrible social dynamics.

Having said that, the attitude of these young girls is unbelievable. There are a lot of exceptions (I find girls who actually have a job to be the most pleasant actually, easiest to pick up, most feminine, that's another thread) but on average, these girls are completely rejecting men from having high status in their lives, popping out 1.4 children and then expecting everyone to help them, then find out it doesn't work that way, and now their miserable. Almost every hot young girl in America is on that path. Not saying you can't bang them, but that's the path their on.

Colleges don't teach anything, young people have too much debt, the country has too much debt, this is going off the rails.

I can see it. I feel sorry for those who aren't preparing now.

Technology IS ultimately causing the decline of society, and this concept goes SO MUCH deeper than you probably think.

I will not go into it in too much detail because I could write an entire article on the topic, but I will say this:

1) We are not evolved for such a technologically advanced world. We are biologically evolved for a far more primitive, tribal world.

2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.

[Travesty]

(09-28-2016 02:54 AM)RBerkley Wrote:  

... future economy affecting women.

There will be universal basic income before that ever happens.

Everyone will earn around the equivalent of $35k off the bat... not many will be able to make much more due to taxes.

Sugar daddy Instagram game will skyrocket x10 for the few wealthy men.

Guys with game will also clear even more because wealth will be less and more evenly distributed among the lower 95% as time goes on.

A case, now a guy that earns $65k guy with little game and no real interesting hobbies vs a starving artist type making $20k that has a little bit of game. Let's say the $65k guy especially past the age of 30 where $ matters a bit more lives in a decent spot with a decent car. He may find a decent girl to settle down (mini beta bucks stability). That $20k starving artist probably lives in a crappy place with roommates, bad logistics, girls after a few months with him may realize even tho he has some game he isn't a good long term bet.

Well now in this future the $65k guy gets $35k UBI and can only find a part time job to make an additional $10k for $45k total. Taxes are higher, saving & investing is harder, so is getting any new job or raise in pay. Being diligent and responsible has a much smaller return for getting more cash in the long run. This guy gets discouraged. Gets lost in virtual reality porn, video games, marijuana, and worst of all... craft beer.

The starving artist makes $35k UBI plus some money from gigs here and there, doesn't have to sweat his bills ever, can Game full-time for months when he chooses to.

Their lifestyles are now practically even. Looks & Game, then $ for high side of the spectrum - mean more than ever. More average guys get lost in virtual reality and legalized weed.

Pussy becomes a complete free-for-all market with a good size portion rationed off as semi-pros to straight bought for the wealthy few.

[roberto]

(10-14-2016 10:11 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Technology IS ultimately causing the decline of society, and this concept goes SO MUCH deeper than you probably think.

I will not go into it in too much detail because I could write an entire article on the topic

Crack on mate, that's the point of this place

Quote:

1) We are not evolved for such a technologically advanced world. We are biologically evolved for a far more primitive, tribal world.

I cautiously agree. However, this argument is often used with supporting statistics to promote any viewpont one cares to mention. Common example is polgyamous relationships. People into sort of this are quick to point to Africa and say 'It takes a village to raise a child. When anyone could be the father they are all invested'. My counter argument is that food is abundant, they breed like rats (and die in times of hardship like rats also). Whereas in Northern climates, where food was much scarcer, the pair bonding played a greater role in the formation of that society. As these people built the world we all know today, I think it's safe to say which reproductive strategy advanced mankind the greatest. On balance, and referring back to my cautious agreement, I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for. It just may not be can adaption in the direction that you agree with. We are at a new frontier right now- in a few years time, kids will come of age who have been able to watch hardcore porn for as long as they have been wondering about the birds and the bees. What will they turn out like?

Quote:

2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.

I believe your peasant from 500 years ago may have begged to differ. Many on here have exceptionally free lives as they have seen what opportunities there are, and taken them. The peasant knew nothing other than growing turnip and handing 95% over to the Lord of the Manor.

Technology can be used as a measure of 'living better' as it provides opportunity and knowledge. However, it is self-limiting- as technology develops, every modern day peasant has access to it.



(Sorry, could only find the meme version)

[Rob Banks]

(10-15-2016 01:36 AM)roberto Wrote:  

I cautiously agree. However, this argument is often used with supporting statistics to promote any viewpont one cares to mention. Common example is polgyamous relationships. People into sort of this are quick to point to Africa and say 'It takes a village to raise a child. When anyone could be the father they are all invested'. My counter argument is that food is abundant, they breed like rats (and die in times of hardship like rats also). Whereas in Northern climates, where food was much scarcer, the pair bonding played a greater role in the formation of that society. As these people built the world we all know today, I think it's safe to say which reproductive strategy advanced mankind the greatest. On balance, and referring back to my cautious agreement, I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for. It just may not be can adaption in the direction that you agree with. We are at a new frontier right now- in a few years time, kids will come of age who have been able to watch hardcore porn for as long as they have been wondering about the birds and the bees. What will they turn out like?

I know nothing about people using my argument (that we're evolved for a more primitive world) to try and prove ridiculous points (such as polygamous societies being superior). You're absolutely right that the "it takes a village...anyone could be the father..." example is quite ridiculous. Anyone who actually believes that is an idiot. However, I don't see how my argument about being evolved for a more (technologically) primitive world could be used to support polygamy and fatherlessness in Africa. Monogamy (true monogamy, not the perversion of monogamy we have today) has been the norm in European societies for millennia; since before Jesus Christ. I also don't have a problem with our colonization of Africa, Christianizing the Africans, and teaching them about monogamy and the family unit.

When I say we're evolved for a "tribal" world, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm against the nation-state. Nations have existed in Europe well before the Industrial Revolution and all this technological advancement. Some people would argue that the problem with nations is that, over time, the nations tend to get bigger and bigger, and there tends to be fewer and fewer of them. Essentially, power gets more and more centralized with time. I would argue, however, that this is only true due to technological advancements, namely automobiles, communication technology (computers and phones) and advanced weaponry. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, nations usually did not grow that big, and national borders were constantly changing. There were many, many small city-states throughout Europe. For a long period of time, Italy and Germany were just made up of lots of little city-states who would often go to war with each other. Large empires surely existed, but usually conquered the lands of primitive Africans and Native Americans (like the British Empire) or conquered mostly uninhabited land (like the Russian Empire). You would have never seen something like today's European Union prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Quote:

"I think humans can adapt faster than they are sometimes given credit for"

This is biologically impossible. Maybe you're referring to an individual person adjusting to his surroundings and adjusting (mentally and emotionally) to the modern world. But I am referring to biological evolutionary adaptation of our minds and bodies. The Industrial Revolution happened 200-300 years ago. It is physically impossible for us to have "adapted" to anything, or evolved at all, in such a relatively short amount of time. We are still biologically the same people we were 500, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago.


2) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in this world is free. This means that for every benefit we get from technology, we pay for it in one way or another. Take modern medicine for example. It saves lives, but in the long run, it greatly weakens the gene pool. Telephones and computers help us communicate, but they also make it easier for the government to influence and control us. This basic dynamic is true for every single piece of technology out there, even if at first you don't see it.

No generation truly has it better than the last. If anything, each generation probably has it worse than the last. I'm sure many people here have heard someone say "today's working poor live better than a king from 500 years ago." This may be true if one defines "living better" as having access to more advanced technology. However, a counterargument to that would be that an upper-middle class man, or even a rich man, in this day and age has less freedom than a serf from 500 years ago.

Quote:

I believe your peasant from 500 years ago may have begged to differ. Many on here have exceptionally free lives as they have seen what opportunities there are, and taken them. The peasant knew nothing other than growing turnip and handing 95% over to the Lord of the Manor.

You're buying in to the media/elites' bullshit. I'm sure that you learned in your school textbook that peasants and serfs were basically slaves who were tortured and killed at the slightest display of insubordination. I'm sure you learned that monarchy is baaaaad, and that most people spent their entire lives obeying the king's every command and kneeling before him, with young women even giving up their virginity to him, out of fear of being killed.

While I'm sure these stories you learned about in school actually happened, it's easy to cherry-pick through thousands of years of history and find stories of monarchies being evil and people not having freedom. What your high school history textbook doesn't cover are the thousands of years when a society was at peace, under a monarchy they respected. Remember when you learned about the ancient Chinese dynasties? Each dynasty lasted several hundreds or thousands of years, until they were overthrown. The reason each dynasty lasted for so long was because the people were satisfied and did not revolt.

Your textbook only covers wars and conflicts, and only the ones they want you to learn about. Did you learn in school about the Barbary Wars that America fought against North African Muslims shortly after the American Revolution? I didn't think so.

Even if a king was evil, people still had more freedom than they do today, simply because the technology to track and control everyone did not exist. There could not be all the laws and regulations we have today, because there would be no way of enforcing them. There could be no wide-spread gun control, because they did not have a database of who owned the guns, and if they tried to confiscate them, entire villages would revolt, and the governments did not have today's advanced weaponry to subdue them.

There is a reason why first-world governments don't get overthrown anymore, and it ain't because we're any more satisfied with our governments than in the past. It's because it has become close to physically impossible to overthrow them, which empowers them to enact whatever laws they want (on behalf of donors and lobbyists).

The peasant or serf from 500 years ago also didn't have to deal with living in a society where everyone was brainwashed by the mainstream media and would then go out and vote for the next king based on who the media told them to vote for. They didn't have to marry sluts. They didn't have to accept their daughters were going to experiment with sex before marriage, and they didn't risk life in jail for marrying their daughter off at 14 to a good man. There were no lifelong criminal records database that ruins your life if you committed a petty crime in your youth.

I could go on and on. Sure, technology has made our lives easier. The serf from 500 years ago had a rougher life, obviously. But he was also freer to make decisions in his life without societal and/or governmental interference.

Quote:

Technology can be used as a measure of 'living better' as it provides opportunity and knowledge. However, it is self-limiting- as technology develops, every modern day peasant has access to it.

Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

[James Bond Next level]

The problem is big corporation creating needs where there isn't any just to make money. From the title of the thread, I immediately thought about Facebook, Selfie stick which made people more self-centered, gave female ways to have continuous attention 24-7. More bad than good IMO.
I was surprised no one mentionned (or I'm mistaken maybe) porn and soon VR porn : huge decrease in testosterone, guy don't (and won't) talk to ladies anymore and become a stay-at-home pussy. So sad and getting worse...

[Meister Eckhart]

Technological determinism is a Marxist idea. I think it's rather ironic that people have swallowed it whole without even considering that. I'm not going to argue that technology doesn't have an influence, but it seems really silly to think that no other forces operate besides it. Technology is a tool, and like any tool it only acts on the intention of the man wielding it.

[Rob Banks]

(10-15-2016 05:59 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

Technological determinism is a Marxist idea. I think it's rather ironic that people have swallowed it whole without even considering that. I'm not going to argue that technology doesn't have an influence, but it seems really silly to think that no other forces operate besides it. Technology is a tool, and like any tool it only acts on the intention of the man wielding it.

If you're referring to my comment, I never said I think "no other forces operate" besides technology. However, it is undeniable that technology has vastly, vastly changed the environment in which we live, and that all this globalist one-world-government horseshit would not have been possible a few centuries ago.

I just saw someone today talking about how Plato said that the invention of writing made people lazy in memorizing ideas and speeches. WRITING, for fuck's sake. Not exactly an advanced technological invention.

All technology and societal "progress" has negative effects on society that are at least equal to (and possibly greater than) the positive effects.

"Societal progress" is a Marxist idea, and it's rather ironic that people on the right have swallowed it whole without even considering that.

[britchard]

In saying technological determinism is a Marxist idea, I'm not sure if you mean that the determinism itself is created by Marxists (facebook, apple, twitter, etc..) or that the idea that technological determinism even exists is a Marxist idea.

Technological determinism does exist. It doesn't mean I, or anyone else on this forum, likes it but it does exist. The culture of me-me-me, the culture of everything having to be instant or effortless is driven by the creation of personal devices and consumerism. That is not to say that human's evolutionary instinct doesn't play a part- of course our ancient ancestors wanted the easiest possible way to do things.

It is simply undeniable that the internet has ground down the diversity of every aspect of human life. There are fewer living languages, fewer regional accents, less authentic regional food, I could go on and on. This is obviously coupled with technology such as aeroplanes, but that is still technology in itself.

Technology without technological determinism would be great. But it's a pipe dream.

[Meister Eckhart]

(10-16-2016 12:59 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

If you're referring to my comment, I never said I think "no other forces operate" besides technology. However, it is undeniable that technology has vastly, vastly changed the environment in which we live, and that all this globalist one-world-government horseshit would not have been possible a few centuries ago.

I just saw someone today talking about how Plato said that the invention of writing made people lazy in memorizing ideas and speeches. WRITING, for fuck's sake. Not exactly an advanced technological invention.

All technology and societal "progress" has negative effects on society that are at least equal to (and possibly greater than) the positive effects.

"Societal progress" is a Marxist idea, and it's rather ironic that people on the right have swallowed it whole without even considering that.

I wasn't singling you out, and indeed it is ironic that people buy into "progress" as being something inherently true. As you pointed out, it was simply invented as a notion for Modern thinkers, especially in the 18th Century with people like Voltaire and Rousseau, to crap on Medieval Scholasticism as stupid and not worthy of attention. It worked splendidly, as most people think anyone prior to the Renaissance was an ignorant moron devoid of any culture.

(10-16-2016 03:25 PM)britchard Wrote:  

In saying technological determinism is a Marxist idea, I'm not sure if you mean that the determinism itself is created by Marxists (facebook, apple, twitter, etc..) or that the idea that technological determinism even exists is a Marxist idea.

Technological determinism does exist. It doesn't mean I, or anyone else on this forum, likes it but it does exist. The culture of me-me-me, the culture of everything having to be instant or effortless is driven by the creation of personal devices and consumerism. That is not to say that human's evolutionary instinct doesn't play a part- of course our ancient ancestors wanted the easiest possible way to do things.

It is simply undeniable that the internet has ground down the diversity of every aspect of human life. There are fewer living languages, fewer regional accents, less authentic regional food, I could go on and on. This is obviously coupled with technology such as aeroplanes, but that is still technology in itself.

Technology without technological determinism would be great. But it's a pipe dream.

Is it? Or is technology simply an extension of the Narcissism of Men who make it? Language death began once again, with the rise of Modernity and the Enlightenment. It was the Jacobin project that sought to stamp out dialects and force a monolithic National identity upon everyone. It wasn't printing presses, radio, television, or even the internet that caused this. It was the idea that people in a government said, "You don't speak a dialect, you're speaking bastardized French/German/Spanish, etc."

This all stems from Enlightenment philosophy which hated regionalism as being iconic to Feudalism. With monarchy gone, and religion as a unifying force not seriously considered, that meant culture had to be pressed upon people. Bretons couldn't just be loyal subjects to the King anymore, they had to speak and act like Parisians do or else you'd have disunity. It's this radical shift in thought that would contribute to the destruction of the Habsburg Empire, which lasted for centuries as a patch-work of people with vast regional variations until modernity forced ethnic nationalism and its demands of centralized government.

[klosck]

According to the esoteric concept of Polarity, anything that brings a benefit, also carries an equal and opposite downside. This also applies to technology. Try to think of any technological innovation which this doesn't apply to: cars pollute , computers make us more sedentary, etc etc

If this is true, then it might also be true that Society doesn't decline or progress based on technology alone. Rather the real factors of progress are determined by changes in human consciousness.