The Myth of Technological Progress

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, cell phones mean that people can call YOU when you're away from the home or office.

<<What were they going to do before that? Call a random pay phone and hoped you answered?>>

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?   Are you kidding me?   They'd call the office and if it was urgent the office would try to get in touch with me if they knew where I was gonna be, as they almost always did; if that didn't work, then when I called to check in, the office would tell me that Mr. Weinstein had called.  My secretaries were trained to take call-back numbers, and times for which those numbers would be good.  If we didn't connect that day, the earth remained in its orbit and we connected the next day. 

<<Pagers and cell phones make the current organ transplant networks work. Without them, organ transplants would be a LOT more miss than hit.>>

And exactly what percentage of our general population do you think are organ transplant recipients?

<<Microwaves have also vastly decreased the time that is spent in the kitchen preparing food, increasing free time and hence quality of life.>>

Well, that is a point that I will have to concede.  Since I never prepared a meal in my life, apart from scrambled eggs and barbeque'd pork chops, I didn't fully appreciate the life-changing effect this particular innovation had on housewives and others.

<<Satellite TV has the ability to bring news from the far corners of the world to you nearly instantly. Increasing the common person's knowledge of world events also increases the quality of life.>>

"News" is it?  As in "CNN News" and "Fox News?"  LMFAO if there is anyone left on this planet who still thinks those crapfests convey  "news."  If "the common person's knowledge of world events" is anything like what I see displayed here in this group on a daily basis, it would appear that satellite TV represents a major setback to common understanding of world events.  The only people who still believe in the newsbearing potential of satellite TV are die-hard Marshall McLuhan fans who believe "the medium is the message."

<<Also, it brings information about foreign lands into your home.>>

As did Viewmaster, LIFE Magazine and National Geographic for way more than 50 years.  TV of any kind, satellite included, brings coverage that is best described as "a mile wide and an inch deep."  Any good magazine writer can do a better job of bringing information about foreign lands into your home than any TV documentary.

<<50 years ago, most people vacationed near their homes, or near some famous landmark in their own country. Nowadays, because of improvements to air travel and the globe spanning TV networks, people vacation in foreign lands and soak in cultures vastly different from their own - again, better quality of life.>>

There's no doubt that the development of long-range bombers in WWII ultimately contributed to the post-war expansion of affordable travel for the masses, but technical improvements in aircraft and guidance systems is only part of the explanation.  Other equally important factors were the wartime construction of airfields all over the world, the development of the hospitality industry overall and the immediate post-war strength of the dollar.

[BT]

"News" is it?  As in "CNN News" and "Fox News?"  LMFAO if there is anyone left on this planet who still thinks those crapfests convey  "news."  If "the common person's knowledge of world events" is anything like what I see displayed here in this group on a daily basis, it would appear that satellite TV represents a major setback to common understanding of world events.  The only people who still believe in the newsbearing potential of satellite TV are die-hard Marshall McLuhan fans who believe "the medium is the message."

You just don't get it. Satellite (and cable) broke the monopoly of the big three broadcasters and their counterparts across the globe. The internet opened the flood gates. Anyone with a cell phone and a camera can be first on the scene. Why is it revolutionaries always turn into reactionaries?

[Michael Tee]

<<You just don't get it. Satellite (and cable) broke the monopoly of the big three broadcasters and their counterparts across the globe. The internet opened the flood gates. Anyone with a cell phone and a camera can be first on the scene. Why is it revolutionaries always turn into reactionaries?>>

O ye of little faith!!!

I get it all right.  Cable news, or any medium driven by advertising revenue, is co-opted by Corporate America in a heartbeat.  I watched a Candy Crowley interview of Sen. Lindsay Graham on Sunday on CNN, and it was a softball masterpiece.  Network MSM couldn't have done it better.  Cable and satellite just give the establishment a wider net.  The internet is a Liberated Information Zone for the moment, but you are just kidding yourself if you don't think corporate America can bring it to heel. 

The interesting question for the moment, IMHO, is how does corporate America retain control over the sheeple at this point in time, when it clearly does not have the monopoly on the flow of information that it used to enjoy before the internet?

[BT]

The interesting question for the moment, IMHO, is how does corporate America retain control over the sheeple at this point in time, when it clearly does not have the monopoly on the flow of information that it used to enjoy before the internet?

Thus the issue of net neutrality.

[Michael Tee]

Exactly.  Thus the "O ye of little faith!"  It's inevitable that the state will assert its control over the free flow of information in cyberspace, it's only a matter of time.

[BT]

The state has been defending the free flow of information on the net. The issue is a bttle between providers of bandwidth and users of bandwidth and ultimately who will pay, and by implementation of tier pricing dependent on type of date, limiting transmission of that data to only those that can afford it. Right now a video transmission costs the same as an email.

[Amianthus]

And exactly what percentage of our general population do you think are organ transplant recipients?

As of 10am this morning, there was a little over 100,000 people on the UNOS list waiting for transplants in the US.

For heart, liver, and kidney transplants, there are approximately 26,000 per year in the US. This obviously does not include other transplants, like lung, skin, etc. Unfortunately accurate numbers are not being kept, but we're looking at millions per decade for the US alone.

[Michael Tee]

I guess it boils down to how you define "life-changing."  If you're one of the transplant recipients, their family or friends, the technology was indeed life-changing, for the other 99% of the world, meh.

Net neutrality is a lost cause.  Sooner or later the big commercial interests will get their way, as they always do.  Sooner or later, the same corporate control of the information flow will be felt in the online world, as it is felt everywhere else.  There's too much at stake for that not to happen.

[Plane]

Exactly.  Thus the "O ye of little faith!"  It's inevitable that the state will assert its control over the free flow of information in cyberspace, it's only a matter of time.

That time is now in China , where the government is strangling Google there are too many things that the people should remain ignorant of.

That time is now in Europe where several countries are about to ban '"blackberry apps" that allow conversations to be incripted too many things that the government must know.

[Michael Tee]

<<That time is now in China , where the government is strangling Google there are too many things that the people should remain ignorant of.>>

Don't worry, the folks who really control the USA will catch up to the Chinese in control of the new media as they already have in control of the old media.  The Chinese, in their turn, could learn a little from North Americans in the art of "repressive tolerance," i.e. tolerating the anti-establishment POV in very small doses so as to maintain the illusion that the flow of information in the mass media is really free.

[Plane]

<<That time is now in China , where the government is strangling Google there are too many things that the people should remain ignorant of.>>

Don't worry, the folks who really control the USA will catch up to the Chinese in control of the new media as they already have in control of the old media.  The Chinese, in their turn, could learn a little from North Americans in the art of "repressive tolerance," i.e. tolerating the anti-establishment POV in very small doses so as to maintain the illusion that the flow of information in the mass media is really free.

Little doses come from little clubs of crackpots.

Should American Communists get equal time with Democrats or Libertarians even though they amount to a very small fraction of the size of these others?

WE hear from Communists and Natzis now and then , about in purportion to their size and appeal.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Chinese government believes that it has an obligation to protect the people from subversion. It is likely that a majority of the Chinese people agree with this, in the same way that ratbag rightwingers want the government to ban a mosque near "Ground Zero", and guys like Kramer want the death penalty for people trying to get 7 year old girls to have health inspections of heir lemonade stands.

The US government has an immense amount of snooping and control over what the average American sees and does. But it is far better at doing all this with maximum stealth. The same is true with the economy. Perhaps an authoritarian government would raise rents, electric rates or water fees in order to get more out of each worker. Even the PRC would not dare cut wages. In the US, interest rates can be raised, production slowed, and workers are laid off. After a few months spending their savings, they are happy to take another job at lower wages. And everyone can say that no one is to blame.

It reminds me that back in the 1950's, Khrushev wanted to visit Disneyland, and was denied permission. The newspapers made fun of him wanting to do such a frivolous thing. Eventually, the real reason was revealed: Khruschev wanted to see how Disney managed to keep huge numbers of people waiting in line willingly and liking it. The US system controls a  huge number of people with credit cards, home mortgages, casinos, installment plans and all sorts of fees better than the Soviets ever did, and a majority of  Americans are unaware that they are actually even being controlled.

To he Soviets, getting 500 people to pay for the privilege of waiting an hour in 90 degree heat to ride four minutes on Space Mountain or in a teacup must have seemed like an impossible miracle. And in reality, it was.

[Amianthus]

To he Soviets, getting 500 people to pay for the privilege of waiting an hour in 90 degree heat to ride four minutes on Space Mountain or in a teacup must have seemed like an impossible miracle. And in reality, it was.

Nah, it's because we got our culture from the Brits.

"An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one." George Mikes

[Plane]

To he Soviets, getting 500 people to pay for the privilege of waiting an hour in 90 degree heat to ride four minutes on Space Mountain or in a teacup must have seemed like an impossible miracle. And in reality, it was.

That is well said , been there to see it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Little doses come from little clubs of crackpots.>>

That's a plausible explanation.  Who gets to define which ideas come from "little clubs of crackpots?"  Actually, the ideas that are assigned to a few easily-labeled "crackpots" are much more popular than the establishment would have you believe.  Part of the mechanism of repressive tolerance is, in addition to giving the ideas minimum public exposure (just enough to avoid the accusation of a class-controlled MSM) is to portray them as fringe ideas, crackpot ideas, something the establishment mouthpieces who are given pride of place know very well how to do.

<<Should American Communists get equal time with Democrats or Libertarians even though they amount to a very small fraction of the size of these others?>>

Yes, of course.  In the "marketplace of ideas," the popularity of any idea is no measure of its worth.  Why shouldn't every Democrat or Libertarian be forced to defend his or her ideas publicly against people who are neither Democrats nor Libertarians?  And why should this happen only at certain long, long intervals, and in a format where the time is so chopped up for commercials that the issues are never thoroughly debated and neither side gets a chance to sum up?

<<WE hear from Communists and Natzis now and then , about in purportion to their size and appeal.>>

What you don't seem to get is that their "size and appeal" is in direct proportion to the "now and then" intervals allowed to them by the tiny handful of giant corporations that control the MSM.  Nor do you get that those corporations themselves have huge interests that are directly threatened by the spread of particular political and even religious POVs, so that the size and above all the "appeal" of certain ideas are judged with a not exactly disinterested eye.