TED Conversations

pat gilbert

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does more technology decrease a person's ability?

Although we have unlimited information available instantly, can communicate instantly, create products with less labor at higher tolerances. It appears that people have less ability to focus and handle real world problems?

Related Talks:
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Mitch SMith 50+

    • +1
    Apr 5 2012: Pat,

    I think technology, such as the internet, decreases personal ability .. but it increases social ability. We can do less on our own, but we can do far more in collaberation.

    Some technology enhances personal ability - such as medical prophelactics .. Cochlear, hip joints, antibiotics .. that kinda stuff .. but what of surveilance, weapons, stealth drones etc .. more ability for some, less for others.

    I think we risk losing ourselves with all the connectedness. Humans are not very good at maintaining full relationships with more than 200 people .. with ubiquitous comms, that limit is massively overloaded .. the 200 or so permanent relationships might disolve into general relationships .. there might be a risk of losing proper understanding of each other .. it may be that our empathy becomes diluted ... maybe it becomes more generalises and encompassing. THings are definitely changing .. but I don't think anyone truly knows where it's headed.

    If the internet stopped tomorrow .. it would be like having our legs chopped off.
    • thumb

      pat gilbert 50+

      • +1
      Apr 5 2012: I see your point about potential regarding social ability. I question how much of that potential is realized.

      Nobody has dissuaded me from thinking that communication ability is diminished by the tech starting with the ability to concentrate.

      But I do agree with Krisztián that the culture is really the catalyst for allowing this. In other words the nanny state has taken away the need for responsibility to greater or lesser extent the apparent cause is the tech.

      • Terry Harman

        • 0
        Apr 7 2012: I think some of that dormant social abilty could be realised through the internet allowing a more partcipatory style of democracy to develop on a local level if not on a global or national/regional level. Local internet referendums and local internet participatory councils for example would be an excellent idea to help with planning descions on the local level. I think it would answer the flaws of the 'nanny state' as participation on a local level would become in some sense mandatory. In order to scale that up to a more regional/global level would take time, probably a lot of it, because it would need a framework of agreed values. I think the UN and EU declarations of human rights is an early attempt at such a framework of agreed values and not a bad one at that. Alternatively the representative democratic institutions would serve quite well at that level as long as there was total transparency.
        • thumb

          pat gilbert 50+

          • 0
          Apr 8 2012: I don't like that idea as it almost always gets exploited as we all follow our self interest which doesn't stop in government. An individual would inevitably game the system to his benefit and to the greater detriment.

          The one thing that keeps everyone accountable, everyone communicating, everyone focused to their own best advantage, everyone focused on serving the other fellow the best is the free market. No form of government can do anything to improve that.

      • Terry Harman

        • 0
        Apr 8 2012: Co-operative behaviour can evolve out of selfish behaviours. Enlightened self interest causes that and game theory, where every individual tries to game the system to their own best advantage, predicts that systems can evolve to do that. Otherwise we would not have evolved our current systems of government out of our tribal self interests. Humans are social creatures, with an inbuilt evolved system of morality. We will and do co-operate because we can see that it is in our own selfish best interest to co-operate with like minded individuals.
        • thumb

          pat gilbert 50+

          • 0
          Apr 8 2012: I will have put the point about Enlightened self interest under category of academic bs.

          What caused the evolution of our systems of society is really a very well known and accepted practice of comparative advantage.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html

          But to assume that individuals are going to turn into angels because they ascend into power is not true. They have and will game the situation to their own advantage at the expense of others.

          IMO politicians will do ANYTHING to stay in power which has them constantly on the hunt. The use the straw man to further their interest and will pass laws that will have detrimental effects on their country to the point of destroying it over the long haul but have capital in the short term for their reelection.

          That is the negative side of politics of, you can't have the negative without the positive, there have been some great ones as well Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc.
      • thumb

        Mitch SMith 50+

        • 0
        Apr 10 2012: I think the concentration /attention span thing is pivotal with the online revolution. I feel that there needs to be some new behavioural customs develop to compensate... And I suppose it will.
        We are seeing a profound state-shift transition that no one can really put their finger on until it's done. But there are signs that it is accelerating .. and will probably be a done deal before anyone can stop it.
        I don't support the old time religion of legislating every spec of dust .. I totally agree that every rule creates 3 things, winners, losers and cheats .. and more than often, teh rules are being invented by cheats for cheats .. I don't like that much because it has the affect of increasing noise, and the whole idea of communication is to reduce noise ..

        Policy would work better if it was never written down .. then people could concentrate on playing by the seat of their pants - we seem to be good at that.
        I'd like to see fun re-prioritised.

        Here's a funny thing to look for:
        When the sun is at a certain height in teh sky, all the lonesome texters stand facing in the same direction to cast a shadow on their little screens .. it makes them look like Easter Island statues - cracks me up!
        At least it's better than when people were talking into their hands-free phones - like they were lunatics talking to themselves .. I found that disturbing, specially when I thought some stranger wanted me to reply.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.