I think your point is great and we are on the same page. It very much is an issue of philosophy towards wellbeing. Without trying to sound too up my own ass, I think people differ on their perspectives here because they are on different points in the journey of understanding life and their wellbeing. I used to be of the opinion that limitless technology in all forms is brilliant, and no of course mobiles phones are not an issue, social media is fine, and me watching 6 hours of youtube a day is great! You could argue with me all day and my opinion wouldn't have changed because it was beyond my framework of thinking about life to have a different opinion. And then gradually, after a lot of learning about the world and myself, my framework has changed. Now I realise my opinions before were not as aligned with my own wellbeing as they could have been. I would invite everyone to take time to reflect and consider alternative ways of living which could be more beneficial for them and the world.
> It very much is an issue of philosophy towards wellbeing.
Exactly, it is a philosophical issue, whereas the person I was replying to was debating on the grounds of “knowledge is good”. I grew up with computers, saw the spread of the Internet but lately I cannot wonder if what we as a society, as tech workers have achieved over the past 20 years to be a net negative for humanity. I very much subscribe to the thesis that the effect of any form of technology, however small, has a radical effect on society; it profoundly changes the world in ways no one can predict, and I wonder whether the common place belief that technological research and innovation, often driven by pure greed, is not at utterly reckless and destructive philosophy.
Yet this is still a fringe position. People are starting to get disillusioned, but the common opinion is that this is good, progress is good, and the solution to the ills of society is more technology, more Internet, more data and more algorithms.
Humanity doesn’t need more knowledge, nor does it need more data and more information. In fact, I would claim this hunger for data, to know more, to measure more, to be a primary cause of the ills of modern society. We have become machines, operant and dependent on information, we forgot the human and biological dimension of our lives.
> but the common opinion is that this is good, progress is good, and the solution to the ills of society is more technology, more Internet, more data and more algorithms.
This is not my position at all.
It seems to me that you need to argue extremes and strawmen in order to sustain your point of view.
I'm not arguing in favor of unchecked technology or "more of everything". That's your burden to bear, not mine.
Please do me the courtesy of actually engaging with what I'm saying, not what you believe I might be saying.
The sentence you quoted says “the common opinion”, and for some reason you think you’re being singled out. I was making a generic, societal argument with another poster.
I do not get why you disagree with such hostility, and take it personally.
It is fine to disagree, you know. It would be better to debate the opposing opinion instead of getting so defensive, but alas. This is getting tiring. Good day to you.
You specifically addressed me with strawmen and wild assumptions about what I believe (generally reducing them to ridiculous extremes, never a good faith debate tactic).
> You operate under the assumption that more knowledge and the more you know about things, the better. So from your point of view spending 12 hours watching philosophy essays and history videos can only be a good thing.
See? This was addressed to me, not in general.
> Exactly, it is a philosophical issue, whereas the person I was replying to was debating on the grounds of “knowledge is good”.
"The person I was replying to" is me, so again you're singling me out.
And I'm not hostile, or do you think people pointing out you're misrepresenting their opinions are "hostile"?
> It would be better to debate the opposing opinion instead of getting so defensive, but alas.
Alas, for this to work, you would need to engage with what the person you're replying to actually wrote, defend your position ("it's junk food for the mind", "it's opium"), be open to having your mind changed if the arguments are good, and avoid making unsupported assertions about my belief system or what I think about knowledge and technology.
Don't act all offended now just because I called you out.
Apologize if you made wrong assumptions, and resume the argument in good faith, and for all that's good and honest -- lose the "I know better" attitude.
