
What Do We Want, Really? - foolrush
http://thefrailestthing.com/2014/12/31/what-do-we-want-really/
======
shutupalready
We need to be thankful that pockets of extreme nonconformity exist to show an
alternative to groupthink. People are so eager to mock or crush any diversity.
Average people can't stand the idea that there are places in the world with
extreme differences like (a) much higher or lower tax (using the U.S. as
reference point), (b) drug attitudes far softer or much worse, (c) political
structures (even the "evil" ones, speaking from the American POV), (d) far
different cultural attitudes about sex, marriage, drinking, and every other
moral issue. If the world didn't have all this diversity, we'd never know that
there's an alternative to what we _thought_ was the best way.

~~~
moultano
For me that's the most frustrating thing about the Westernization of the
world. Your own culture is always invisible to you. You can only see it in
contrast to something else. If everything becomes the same, then we lose the
ability to even see those things, let alone think about them.

~~~
blfr
That's a great sentiment, the same that is behind conservation in general.
Most people, however, don't enjoy being poor and western is the only culture
with a proven track record of basic material prosperity.

~~~
alextgordon
Western culture has relative "material prosperity" because our ancestors
invaded all the _other_ places on earth and fucked them up. See: Africa, the
Middle East.

In places we didn't invade such as Mongolia and Japan, they're actually doing
quite well.

Before you look down on the rest of the planet, consider that Europe is one of
the best places to survive on earth. It's temperate, it's fertile, it rains a
lot, it's geologically stable. Is it surprising that life is easy in Europe?

Compare that to North Africa, which is one of the least hospitable places on
the planet: a huge desert. Installing western culture in North Africa would
not fix anything.

Many people _do_ in fact enjoy being "poor", as you put it, as long as they
have everything they need in life. The western alternative to "poor" for these
people is to work crazy hours in a factory. What kind of prosperity is that?

~~~
blfr
_In places we didn 't invade such as Mongolia and Japan, they're actually
doing quite well._

Americans occupied Japan for years, not to mention first destroying her
military, and razing a few cities with fire bombs and then nukes. Mongolia's
GDP (PPP) per capita is less than $10k. On average, a Mongolian is four times
poorer than a French. The same is true for Russia which has immense natural
resources, dwarfing those of Europe. Their ability to manipulate natural gas
supplies hangs over the EU to this day. Soviets used to control what was once
the breadbasket of Europe. Didn't do them much good. Actually, they managed to
induce a famine there.

Europe is rich because of industrial revolution and stable governments (more
stable than elsewhere anyway). Invading other places was largely made possible
by the technological advances rather than causing them. Before, Europe was
nearly conquered by Muslisms[1]. Twice[2]. It was regularly raided for slaves
(in 16-17th century[3], no ancient history), and starved of precious metals
for much of its history.

 _What kind of prosperity is that?_

The kind billions of people living in poverty today would take in heartbeat.
They do whenever given a chance. Going as far as risking their lives to cross
the Mediterranean or Florida Straits.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna)

[3]
[http://www.jstor.org/discover/25818051](http://www.jstor.org/discover/25818051)

~~~
bro-kaizen
"...razing a few cities..."

Actually, the Americans were on the border of _running out of targets_ in WWII
Japan because they had already destroyed all the cities.

------
rdtsc
Amish are very nice people, warm, friendly and with strong convictions. I was
lucky to have been invited once to share a day with them (a visited a
community in Ohio, had dinner, talked to them). But nevertheless ,the whole
"no electricity" thing is crazy. Depending on the area there are workshops
devoted in converting electrical appliances to pneumatic power. Yes they take
things like blenders, food processors, pull out the electric motor put in an a
pnumatic one. Then, of course, run compressed air (or vacuuum?) lines through
their house. Some reintepret it as "you can't be connected to the mains" so
they charge batteries then use the batteries to supply power to the house or
machinery. Think about the brainpower and time spent into doing that. There is
not logic or careful analysis of "advantages of electricity vs disadvantages"
it is plain silly.

~~~
elwell
How did you get invited to share a day with them? I'm interested in doing the
same.

~~~
jackpirate
I spent a weekend with a
[Bruderhof]([http://www.bruderhof.com/](http://www.bruderhof.com/)) community.
It's basically the same thing as the Amish. I just asked :) They're very
welcoming.

------
planckscnst
I don't think my kids would be better off without TV, and I suspect most
people don't actually think that, either.

TV (just as books) is a tool for delivering entertainment, education, and
culture, and it's reasonably effective at that.

I'm glad I had TV when I was a child. The thing I value most is that it
inspired an interest in science, math, and technology. Thanks, Square One,
Bill Nye, Beakman's World, Discover, etc! Later on in life (teenage years), it
taught me about time management; you can allow yourself to be entertained for
many hours and not actually feel better for it, but actually worse, as you've
lost that time; you can allow yourself to be entertained for an hour and it
will change your whole outlook on the day. Always be aware of what you are
gaining and giving up for entertainment.

Anyway, I could go on about why I love TV (and these days, the Internet),
that's the gist.

~~~
vinceguidry
You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from an
entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology.

Such a perspective is limited only to the affluent and Western-oriented.
That's a ridiculously tiny fraction of humanity. And even there it's only been
for the last 20 years or so, I suspect closer to 10-15. It wasn't that long
ago most people considered the Internet a tool for commerce, not a vehicle for
connection and entertainment, people that used it as such were looked at as
basement-dwelling perma-nerds.

~~~
scrollaway
> You're espousing an ultra-modern perspective, one that can only happen from
> an entire life lived in the presence of ultra-modern technology.

Okay, so? Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

~~~
vinceguidry
The person I was replying to didn't seem to understand how people could think
of technology, namely televisions, as an alien force that shouldn't be
trusted. And indeed it shouldn't be trusted, until it becomes ubiquitous. High
technology emerged in the fifties. It took over fifty years for it to suffuse
our lives to the point where we could trust it.

I grew up with technology. Most of the kids I grew up with didn't. I had
computers and video games and I spent all my time with them, all the time my
mom would let me spend. She would kick me out and make me go play outside. She
was right to do so, if I hadn't I might now be even more socially stunted than
I am. These days parents won't do that. Kids today can spend an amount of time
I could only dream of interacting with technology. We trust it now.

People in other parts of the world where high technology isn't ubiquitous
would do well to distrust it. It rips through traditional ways of life like so
much toilet paper. The people whose lives are disrupted often don't have
anything else.

Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring the Internet to everybody. I hope he doesn't
accomplish his goal too soon. The Arab Spring made a lot of people's lives
measurably worse. Don't like your dictator, sure, topple him and feel real
good about the democracy you think you're bringing to your country. What now?
Until we, the West, inventors of high technology and snubbers of complex
social problems, can answer that question, that delicate system of graft and
corruption is keeping your country stable.

~~~
Houshalter
I don't think it's fair to blame the political situation of the middle east on
technology. It contributed, sure, but how much would have happened anyway? And
how many other factors are at play?

------
codingdave
I think the comments so far are getting too caught up in the details of the
article.

The point is not whether or not you like TV, or what choices the Amish have
made. The point is to engage in a thoughtful decision process with technology,
(or anything else in your life), and decide if it truly is helping you be the
person you want to be, helping your family to grown on a personal level, and
improving your community.

If you have truly thought it out and decided that any given tech is good for
your life, great. But if you are just bringing technology into your life
because it is new and shiny, you might want to consider stepping a level or
two deeper in your decision process.

------
jostmey
I like the article and and the point that it makes using the Amish people as
an example.

But the Amish did not make a conscious decision to refrain from watching TV.
No, the Amish shied away from electricity because of a religious belief that
was in place before Television even existed. It is also worth noting that the
Amish do not believe in education past 8th grade, and yet everyone would raise
their hands if they were asked if they would want their children to go to
college.

~~~
ars
> But the Amish did not make a conscious decision to refrain from watching TV.
> No, the Amish shied away from electricity because of a religious belief that
> was in place before Television even existed.

That is not correct.

They evaluate all technology based on the impact it will have to their family
life. They don't have a religious belief against electricity.

They believe electricity would be harmful to the social fabric of their life.
And they are probably right.

TV - even if not based on grid electricity (solar power for example) would
certainly harm their social fabric.

------
tjradcliffe
Claims like the one that "we" want what we cannot possibly have at the price
"we" are willing to pay are tiresome. Who is this "we"?

I'm perfectly willing to pay the price of living the way I do, and so are a
great many people here. Most of us have given the technologies we use some
thought and selected the ones we use to maximize benefit and minimize cost.

There's no data presented in the article, just some guy's some informal
impression that he can get away with accusing most people of hypocrisy. I
dunno... I don't feel like a hypocrite. Do the majority of people here? My
informal impression is they don't, but that's worth about as much as the
informal impression in the article.

A more plausible reality is that we all have doubts that we've chosen well,
when making choices of technology etc, and we're aware that both costs and
benefits can be hidden and only show up at a later time. But that latent
concern is quite different from what's being imputed by the article, which
doesn't even get the Amish right: their rejection of many modern technologies
is driven not by any consequentialist cost-benefit analysis, but by a
deontological desire for plainness, self-effacement and submission to the rule
or order of their anabaptist religion.

~~~
jal278
> Claims like the one that "we" want what we cannot possibly have at the price
> "we" are willing to pay are tiresome. Who is this "we"?

This "we" encompasses nearly everyone living in modern society as a consumer.
Recall a past motto of McDonald's: "Have it your way." Whether we're aware of
it our not, this sort of message seeps into one's psyche. We become accustomed
to convenience and adept at ignoring uncomfortable truths.

As a result we don't often undertake the dramatic life changes required for us
to live in a way that agrees with our root moral beliefs. For example, it is
difficult to morally defend factory farms if one is against needless suffering
and would rail against someone kicking a puppy.

Imagine that whenever you wanted to eat an egg you first walked through where
that egg came from, observing whether it was a relatively content free-range
chicken, or one so crowded by other chickens that it is caked in filth. The
suffering would be in your face, and so difficult to ignore that you might
actually change your purchasing behavior to alleviate your own discomfort.

However, just because such suffering is out of sight -- hidden by the neat
packaging we encounter at the supermarket -- does not mean (of course) that it
goes away. In truth, most of us are aware of the contradictions in how we live
(myself included) but do not change our behavior. At our core we want
convenience and comfort, and also to minimize our own suffering and that of
others. But too often we focus only on what is easier (convenience and
comfort) and ignore suffering that would require us to surrender even a bit of
that comfort.

~~~
avz
I wonder if this apparent contradiction can't be explained by re-examination
of one the assumptions we're making. Namely, we assume human being is a
singular, consistent self with a coherent set of goals. Perhaps, we're not.
Perhaps, we're a bunch of more or less independent modules evolved for
different purposes and activated in different circumstances. One module seeks
to maximize convenience and pleasure. Another one to pass moral judgements. By
eliminating direct exposure to the way chicken are treated we keep the moral
unit offline while the convenience-seeker in us gets the best deal.

Vast literature from ancient Greece till modern day describe inner struggles
that suggest humans may not actually have a coherent set of values and goals
at all.

~~~
foolrush
“Namely, we assume human being is a singular, consistent self with a coherent
set of goals. Perhaps, we're not.”

Perhaps?

There is a solid twenty-five years of sociology that dismiss the collective
“we” as nothing more than privilege and oppression.

See Postcolonial theory, for example.

------
joshjkim
I like this article - agree with the others that it gives the luddite concept
a little too much love and doesn't properly recognize the huge benefits of
mass media and tech, but still, the basic realization that self-determination
in the face of enabling technology, media, culture etc. almost always requires
real hard work and sacrifice is something worth contemplating - perhaps more
importantly, interesting to consider that the utilization of all
society/progress has to offer is in some cases the opposite of self-
determination.

I might keep reading this blog.

------
Apocryphon
I don't think the core of this article is about technology at all. My main
takeaway is that often we imagine that the futures we're working towards can
be accomplished through incrementalism. But it really requires far more
radical action than that.

This can also be applied to self-improvement.

------
hartator
Until you get sick and you are happy to have access to modern medicine.
#Sight.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
The Amish do use modern medicine. At least some of them. It depends on the
community.

~~~
avz
How do they reconcile it with the Ordnung's prohibition on the use of mains
electricity? Almost all modern diagnostic, surgical and other medical
equipment requires it.

~~~
ars
They have no problem with other people using it, and they have no problem with
renting such services.

They just don't want to own it, or make the access too convenient. So they
might have a telephone - but it's at the end of a 10 minute walkway.

PS. How do you know the term Ordnung, but not know the basics of their belief
about technology?

------
grondilu
I've recently watched a video titled "on the purpose of Life"[1], from
YouTuber Robert Murray-Smith, who usually posts videos about tech and science,
mostly graphene-related stuff.

He makes a nice point that trying to assign a purpose to everything we do, and
to Life itself, may be a mistake. He takes animal behavior as a comparison.
Animals usually don't act in order to achieve a high-level goal. They do
things because that's what they are built to do. Most of their actions are
consequences of basic impulses, emotions and instincts. Now I understand we
are highly sophisticated mammals with big brains, and as such we are capable
of acting on a rational basis towards an abstract notion of a goal often
simplistically called "happiness", for instance. Yet we are still very much
animals, so it may be very wrong to think all our actions should be based on
this mode of behavior. If we do we may face the absence of a definitive answer
to our quest for purpose, which would explain our tendency to jump into goals
made up by religion, or into philosophical wanderings which can sometimes be
quite unsettling.

1\.
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=xc7kM0mSVfw](https://youtube.com/watch?v=xc7kM0mSVfw)

------
887
The question on the bus reminded me of the talk stallman gave at the 31c3.

You can watch stallmans talk here for reference:
[http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/31C3/webm-
hd/31c3-6123-en-d...](http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/31C3/webm-
hd/31c3-6123-en-de-Freedom_in_your_computer_and_in_the_net_webm-hd.webm)

------
crimsonalucard
What a person, or any person wants is never a singular objective. Our
motivations are complex our ideals are vague, is it really so surprising that
we all own televisions and at the same time think it's bad for us? As humans
we are conflicted and irrational by nature

We tend to only pretentiously believe these things only for other people and
never ourselves. It's this attitude of "Oh I know exactly what I want, but
yeah I get how other people can get conflicted." I think what makes this
article seem so intriguing is the fact that the author starts it off by
throwing this irrationality into our face with something we all are conflicted
about: television.

------
noisy_boy
I think we are living in times where people see your rightousness and
appreciate it but when you take that to its logical extension i.e. upholding
it at significant cost, you are labelled as a fanatic/nutjob/weirdo. As long
as you pay lip-service and don't really take much real action, you are
"normal"/one of us.

And I don't think it was always like this - freedom fighters who had strong
beliefs and died to free my country, are hailed as heroes but when somebody
actually lives those morals today, people shy away and call him/her as
fundamentalist or whatever populist label is convenient.

------
getdavidhiggins
If one chooses 100% serendipity all of the time, creativity ensues, and the
vast panoply of `what we want` gets ever more diverse.

Being open to all possibilities is like being at a fork in the road choosing
to travel them both.

Destiny is choosing one road, and shutting out any chance of ever tasting and
experiencing other paths.

It's the old story of stoics vs epicureans; only not so extreme. There is a
lot more room to wiggle in terms of choice these days, because the gatekeepers
of old have vanished. If the world was your oyster 10 years ago - you can bet
your ass it's 1000% that now.

------
calebm
Wonderful post. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Blaise Pascal:

"All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means
they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of
others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views.
The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of
every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves."

------
robbrown451
Does a horse and buggy go fast enough to notice the Doppler effect?

~~~
krdln
If a buggy is going 5m/s (18km/h) then pitch difference between approaching
and receding buggy is about a half of a semitone. So I'm pretty sure you can
hear it.

------
elwell
I just watched episode two of Black Mirror (on Netflix). It shows an
interesting world in which tech has really taken over the human.

~~~
SilasX
Yes! That one really haunts me! They're completely cut off from nature and
live in shoeboxes, albeit with lots of hedonic (and Wii-inspired) tech.

And then (minor spoilers) when someone finally does make a bold stance against
the lifestyle they've created, they convince him to just bottle up that
passion and sell it chunks to other drones, so that he can afford a bigger
shoebox and do less menial labor.

I couldn't make sense of the role of the bicycling though. Why would someone
benefit from people turning the wheels? In what economic equilibrium is that
the best use for humans? Any energy source is better applied directly to
generation rather than running through a human first as (packaged) food.

~~~
elwell
I agree about the bicycling. I guess it was just symbolic.

------
UhUhUhUh
The problem is not technology but the exponentially growing gap between what
we do and use and our understanding of how it works.

------
graycat
Want? Really?

We want a solution to the fundamental problem of life, that is, doing
something effective about feeling alone.

Or, one step deeper, we seek security from the anxiety from our realization
that alone we are vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature and society.

Only four solutions have been found effective, love of spouse, love of God,
membership in a group, and one more not recommended.

Paraphrased from E. Fromm, 'The Art of Loving'.

Simple enough.

Bet the Amish do relatively well on the above.

~~~
graycat
Best insight into life I ever got.

Fromm's book is a classic, highly respected.

Sorry you didn't like it.

You would do well to think again.

