The Downfall Of Society

[RAMOSS]

Evolving or devolving, and when we dont generally do things well or correctly then you can bet your next paycheck that we are devolving.

Our President is Donald Trump.

We are evolving?

NO

That would be 'degenerating'.

 

[Hawkeye10]

That would be 'degenerating'.

We used to call that Putting on Airs.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, a bit too melodramatic? How about decline of society?

shrug...

I don't even see it as a "decline". I guess it depends on one's perspective and preferences. I see it, as I said, as an evolution.

Heck, just look at what Trump has been able to do with his phone...he's been able to bring doubt among much of the world, the concept that the President of the United States is the "leader of the free world" so regardless of what we attribute it to, I see a society...the American society in decline...seriously, how can it not be after our wild rise and arrogant use of the worlds resources building an economic methodology that can't be sustained...not without the acceptance of the rest of the world...and they ain't buyin' it as easy as they have in the past.

Now, I think you are laying too much at Trump's feet. For example, the "leader of the free world" thing. That didn't originate with Trump and, frankly, I don't think Trump ever aspired to be such a leader. He seems to be more concerned with America than the free world. That's not to say he doesn't see a responsibility for the US to take part in dealing with the problems of the world. It just means his focus, when dealing with those problems, is how America benefits or loses and whether there is a danger to Americans.

This "doubt among much of the world" that you speak of, I think, is on the part of countries that are accustomed to a US that wanted to promote globalism because Trump isn't interested in promoting globalism. In fact, his aims are just the opposite.

But neither of these issues...as well as your mention of America's "use of the worlds resources"...have anything to do with your perceived decline of society. If anything, globalism is probably more responsible for that so-called decline since our evolved global society has pretty much supplanted most nation's historical societies.

 

[RAMOSS]

shrug...

I don't even see it as a "decline". I guess it depends on one's perspective and preferences. I see it, as I said, as an evolution.



Now, I think you are laying too much at Trump's feet. For example, the "leader of the free world" thing. That didn't originate with Trump and, frankly, I don't think Trump ever aspired to be such a leader. He seems to be more concerned with America than the free world. That's not to say he doesn't see a responsibility for the US to take part in dealing with the problems of the world. It just means his focus, when dealing with those problems, is how America benefits or loses and whether there is a danger to Americans.

This "doubt among much of the world" that you speak of, I think, is on the part of countries that are accustomed to a US that wanted to promote globalism because Trump isn't interested in promoting globalism. In fact, his aims are just the opposite.

But neither of these issues...as well as your mention of America's "use of the worlds resources"...have anything to do with your perceived decline of society. If anything, globalism is probably more responsible for that so-called decline since our evolved global society has pretty much supplanted most nation's historical societies.

He seems more concerned about himself than anything else.

 

[Mycroft]

He seems more concerned about himself than anything else.

shrug...

Another of those "perspective" things. I don't share your's.

 

[AYSM]

shrug...

I don't even see it as a "decline". I guess it depends on one's perspective and preferences. I see it, as I said, as an evolution.



Now, I think you are laying too much at Trump's feet. For example, the "leader of the free world" thing. That didn't originate with Trump and, frankly, I don't think Trump ever aspired to be such a leader. He seems to be more concerned with America than the free world. That's not to say he doesn't see a responsibility for the US to take part in dealing with the problems of the world. It just means his focus, when dealing with those problems, is how America benefits or loses and whether there is a danger to Americans.

This "doubt among much of the world" that you speak of, I think, is on the part of countries that are accustomed to a US that wanted to promote globalism because Trump isn't interested in promoting globalism. In fact, his aims are just the opposite.

But neither of these issues...as well as your mention of America's "use of the worlds resources"...have anything to do with your perceived decline of society. If anything, globalism is probably more responsible for that so-called decline since our evolved global society has pretty much supplanted most nation's historical societies.

As you say, a matter of perspective...evolution works for me.

Let's address technology instead since that old answering machine is pretty much history anyway.

I think it wouldn't be too hard to support the claim that Obama was more considered the leader of the free world than Trump and as you pointed out...not his goal...my point was he basically got the point across by proving his incapacity to the rest of the world...tweet tweet

"But neither of these issues...as well as your mention of America's "use of the worlds resources"...have anything to do with your perceived decline of society."

Seriously? You are suggesting that resources of the planet have nothing to do with our building up the most unbalanced society on the planet?

Of course Trump wants to "make America great again"...great slogan...America first...hell yeah, I'd do the same thing if I wanted to become a world oligarch and run a con to get elected...regardless, all he is doing is hastening the inevitable...he's no humanitarian nor is he an environmentalist and his actions will not be directed at helping his base...so many wins, yeah

How's the swamp draining going? If there weren't some perceived decline why such an irrational vote for change?

 

[Mycroft]

As you say, a matter of perspective...evolution works for me.

Let's address technology instead since that old answering machine is pretty much history anyway.

Okay...address away.

I think it wouldn't be too hard to support the claim that Obama was more considered the leader of the free world than Trump and as you pointed out...not his goal...my point was he basically got the point across by proving his incapacity to the rest of the world...tweet tweet

Oh, I agree with what you say about Obama. The rest of the globalists looked to him for leadership. But I disagree with your contention that Trump "proved his incapacity". On the contrary, he directly stated that he had no intention of being a globalist by calling for America First over and over.

"But neither of these issues...as well as your mention of America's "use of the worlds resources"...have anything to do with your perceived decline of society."

Seriously? You are suggesting that resources of the planet have nothing to do with our building up the most unbalanced society on the planet?

Yes. That is what I'm suggesting.

Perhaps you can tell me what is "unbalanced" about our society and, while you are at it, tell me why "our" society is spreading throughout the world if it's so bad. Furthermore, since the rest of the world is incorporating our "unbalanced society", don't they also bear some responsibility?

Of course Trump wants to "make America great again"...great slogan...America first...hell yeah, I'd do the same thing if I wanted to become a world oligarch and run a con to get elected...regardless, all he is doing is hastening the inevitable...he's no humanitarian nor is he an environmentalist and his actions will not be directed at helping his base...so many wins, yeah

Well, you certainly have your opinions about Trump and you aren't afraid to express them, but I have to wonder what all that has to do with your own thread topic...The Downfall Of Society? I think I asked you before and didn't get a clear answer: Do you hold Trump responsible for this so-called downfall of society?

How's the swamp draining going? If there weren't some perceived decline why such an irrational vote for change?

So...I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Are you now blaming your downfall on the swamp? Or are you blaming it on Trump wanting to drain the swamp?


You know...I've tried to be rational and thoughtful with you, but I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time. You seem to be all over the place and rather unfocused in your responses. Can you do better? I hope so.

 

[AYSM]

You know...I've tried to be rational and thoughtful with you, but I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time. You seem to be all over the place and rather unfocused in your responses. Can you do better? I hope so.

Perhaps we are both wasting our time...I'm not blaming Trump, I am saying he is a symptom...if the world is so intent on our lead why have they evolved away from our direction in medical care and our non lead in renewables?

Trump claimed he would drain the swamp but nothing in his actions seems to indicate he really wants to...that's just another talking point on his part that his base likes.

What's unbalanced about our society...are you seriously not aware about our tendency toward greater consumption of the earth's resources per capita?

And how much debt we have accrued in gaining them?

One thing Trump might be able to help the country with...his vast experience with bankruptcy.

 

[AYSM]

We rented a phone from ma bell that had a switch to turn the ringer off. So if no answer perhaps the switch was off, and your hypothesis goes out the window?

Not really...the switch merely leaves the call unanswered, whereas the answering machine allows for gathering information without accountability...making for dishonest use of the telephone which a switch does not provide...granted, we've moved well beyond this technologically and this was just a moment in time...many didn't accept my argument then and it's probably even harder to sell today...so...I suppose I should put together a more current argument as Mycroft suggested...sounds good...I'll go there next.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Not really...the switch merely leaves the call unanswered, whereas the answering machine allows for gathering information without accountability...making for dishonest use of the telephone which a switch does not provide...granted, we've moved well beyond this technologically and this was just a moment in time...many didn't accept my argument then and it's probably even harder to sell today...so...I suppose I should put together a more current argument as Mycroft suggested...sounds good...I'll go there next.

So you are going to move the time frame back to when you asserted the downfall of modern society? So are you admitting that the premise was faulty? I mean how much time are we talking about? From the answering machine to AOL dial up?

I do agree that the answering machine changed how the phone worked. And one could say it carried over and festered on the internet. Does not indicate the downfall of society. Seems a bit overly dramatic.

How about society evolves with time? People used to always answer the phone for good or bad. Of course not too long before then there wasnt a phone in every house. Perhaps the fault was the phone itself? Or in other words electronic communications. Even the telegraph had a huge effect on society. And before then the pony express. Smoke signals?

 

[AYSM]

So you are going to move the time frame back to when you asserted the downfall of modern society? So are you admitting that the premise was faulty? I mean how much time are we talking about? From the answering machine to AOL dial up?

I do agree that the answering machine changed how the phone worked. And one could say it carried over and festered on the internet. Does not indicate the downfall of society. Seems a bit overly dramatic.

How about society evolves with time? People used to always answer the phone for good or bad. Of course not too long before then there wasnt a phone in every house. Perhaps the fault was the phone itself? Or in other words electronic communications. Even the telegraph had a huge effect on society. And before then the pony express. Smoke signals?

Here's how I began the OP...

"I've argued since shortly after it's introduction and gain in popularity, the downfall of society, in part, began with the invention of the telephone answering machine...it became a line of defense from honest human interaction...I submit that current events in communication technology bear that out."

That defines my point of reference...way back when...it points out why...honest human interaction...and it goes to direction I intended to go with it...current events...."fake news".

Any "downfall of society" reference addressing current events might seem a bit "overly dramatic" as you say, if I may have a bit of poetic license perhaps, I shall at least try and get there by providing further context to make my case.

Smoke signals? One could argue that with all the benefits to our society the gun provided in our growth...it contributed to the downfall of the society that thrived with the bow and arrow.

How about we move ahead looking at this as American society in a modern day information technology World?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Here's how I began the OP...

"I've argued since shortly after it's introduction and gain in popularity, the downfall of society, in part, began with the invention of the telephone answering machine...it became a line of defense from honest human interaction...I submit that current events in communication technology bear that out."

That defines my point of reference...way back when...it points out why...honest human interaction...and it goes to direction I intended to go with it...current events...."fake news".

Any "downfall of society" reference addressing current events might seem a bit "overly dramatic" as you say, if I may have a bit of poetic license perhaps, I shall at least try and get there by providing further context to make my case.

Smoke signals? One could argue that with all the benefits to our society the gun provided in our growth...it contributed to the downfall of the society that thrived with the bow and arrow.

How about we move ahead looking at this as American society in a modern day information technology World?

While the premise sounds plausible the thing is that the answering machine allowed for better communication not less. Cell phones are the natural progression of enhanced communication among members of society.

I suspect that parents will teach their children about communicating and what is and isnt rude etc. I believe that we are early in learning as a society about the ins and outs of instant communications. Kids need to be taught to not believe everything they read on the internet. Adults can be gullible and fall for news that isnt actually news, but propaganda.

 

[C R O I X]

I've argued since shortly after it's introduction and gain in popularity, the downfall of society, in part, began with the invention of the telephone answering machine...it became a line of defense from honest human interaction...I submit that current events in communication technology bear that out.

Society is ever evolving so this thesis will likely ring more plausible with those who experienced society during my generation while the younger folks are diggin' their toys...amazing technology to say the least.

In the old days no answer meant no one near the phone...nowadays we have Ring where you can appear to be home when you really aren't...voice, floodlights, heck, set off an alarm...deter thieves, way cool

I preferred a society where we lived in neighborhoods where we didn't worry about even needing to carry a house key.

You are right when you talk about the influence of technology, because the way we see and interact with the worlds is through technologies. It means that technologies shape us.

But I believe you are being way to limited and simplified when talk about telephone. Morse code had much more impact in society, communication and mas media which has a huge influence on people, politics and society before the telephone. And sfter Telephone the screens.

Think that before Morse code communication took days, weeks and moths to reach some places. News was travelling on the speed of trains. If we use the US as example, some political thing happening in Washington used to take Months for the News arrive in the Sought States. Because of that newspapers used to be much more analytical, with long texts and deeper thoughts about political and economical issues. People used to be more engaged and curious about political debates among candidates. But after the morse cose news became less about bring information and more about being the first to tell a story. Information became less analytical and more factual, after all we can not do philosophy and deep thoughts through Morse code, it is about being fast and short. And the more people become bombed with information the less deeper they will be engaged and debating about things, thanks to the radio, TV and now Internet.

Today the screen media is the one that dominates communication, and the language of the screen is the entertainment. And entertainment is the language of distraction, quick shallow thoughts and fast changes all to keep our attention. Otherwise it becomes boring like philosophy and deep thoughts through morse code. This is why politics, news and even education is today before anithing else entertainment rather the actually politics, news and education.

But the communication media is just one aspect of it. The other aspect is the transportation technology development that turned people more and more materialist which impact also in the politics and economics. But I will stop writting here.

 

[AYSM]

While the premise sounds plausible the thing is that the answering machine allowed for better communication not less. Cell phones are the natural progression of enhanced communication among members of society.

Yes...arguably better and then we progressed, as you say to the cell phone...funny thing happened back when addressing this a while back...I got a text bomb...a former neighbor added me to a list of 10...I knew one of the others...there were a bunch of "who dat?" and text's back and forth trying to figure out wtf? Finally someone said "stop texting me" another answered someone else and another responded to another and then the other said, "I said quit texting me, you're interrupting my class." So much for "better" communication...then a few days back...the phone went off again...same group of confusion...I texted "this is bull****"...the person who started it all suggested I delete the conversation...that required a bit of learning on my part being virtually ignorant on such things...with the help of a friend...woohoo...I got this down.

I suspect that parents will teach their children about communicating and what is and isnt rude etc. I believe that we are early in learning as a society about the ins and outs of instant communications. Kids need to be taught to not believe everything they read on the internet. Adults can be gullible and fall for news that isnt actually news, but propaganda.

I suspect that parents teach less and less values as their children spend more and more time with their technology and daycare.

Propaganda is much more easily spread through todays technology...fake news...hoax...etcetera.

 

[AYSM]

You are right when you talk about the influence of technology, because the way we see and interact with the worlds is through technologies. It means that technologies shape us.

But I believe you are being way to limited and simplified when talk about telephone. Morse code had much more impact in society, communication and mas media which has a huge influence on people, politics and society before the telephone. And sfter Telephone the screens.

Think that before Morse code communication took days, weeks and moths to reach some places. News was travelling on the speed of trains. If we use the US as example, some political thing happening in Washington used to take Months for the News arrive in the Sought States. Because of that newspapers used to be much more analytical, with long texts and deeper thoughts about political and economical issues. People used to be more engaged and curious about political debates among candidates. But after the morse cose news became less about bring information and more about being the first to tell a story. Information became less analytical and more factual, after all we can not do philosophy and deep thoughts through Morse code, it is about being fast and short. And the more people become bombed with information the less deeper they will be engaged and debating about things, thanks to the radio, TV and now Internet.

Today the screen media is the one that dominates communication, and the language of the screen is the entertainment. And entertainment is the language of distraction, quick shallow thoughts and fast changes all to keep our attention. Otherwise it becomes boring like philosophy and deep thoughts through morse code. This is why politics, news and even education is today before anithing else entertainment rather the actually politics, news and education.

But the communication media is just one aspect of it. The other aspect is the transportation technology development that turned people more and more materialist which impact also in the politics and economics. But I will stop writting here.

_.._ . . ._ _.
_ _. _ _ _ .. _. _ _.

 

[CletusWilbury]

I suppose it's depends on how you're measuring things, but I'll throw in that the Freakonomics team demonstrated statistically that the advent of television was associated with a large increase in crime rates.

I love that program/books. Very interesting statistics and analysis.
What did they hypothesize the reasons were?

 

[Fenton Lum]

I've argued since shortly after it's introduction and gain in popularity, the downfall of society, in part, began with the invention of the telephone answering machine...it became a line of defense from honest human interaction...I submit that current events in communication technology bear that out.

Society is ever evolving so this thesis will likely ring more plausible with those who experienced society during my generation while the younger folks are diggin' their toys...amazing technology to say the least.

In the old days no answer meant no one near the phone...nowadays we have Ring where you can appear to be home when you really aren't...voice, floodlights, heck, set off an alarm...deter thieves, way cool

I preferred a society where we lived in neighborhoods where we didn't worry about even needing to carry a house key.

You/we traded that away for the promise of predatory "capitalism". As Marx predicted, it will eat itself and humanity will evolve onto something else, much as it did in evolving away from feudalism and for much of the same reasons. Not necessarily communism as Marx argued, but something else sustainable. A system that relies upon never ending growth cannot last on a finite planet. Viruses and bacteria emply the same strategy.

 

[WillyPete]

I love that program/books. Very interesting statistics and analysis.
What did they hypothesize the reasons were?

Yeah, they're great. Really opened my eyes to how everything we do is economics and how strongly people respond to incentives, good and bad.

As I recall, they speculated that showing people the lifestyles of the rich and famous made them realize what they didn't have and couldn't afford, which increased the chances they would steal in an effort to gain it.

Sounds a bit thin to me, but I don't have a better guess.

Of course the Freakonomics guys would never claim something like that as fact.

 

[CletusWilbury]

...
Propaganda is much more easily spread through todays technology...fake news...hoax...etcetera.

True, as it was with the printing press. I think CROIX made a good point about the telegraph. Newspapers could get news much more quickly.
One difference, at least people had to read, which you don't watching television. (makes me think of Trump)

I'm 64, learned math, computer programming in the early 70's, bought an Apple II shortly after they first came out.
And have always read history books.
I'm all for societies advancing, with all the trouble. Especially since it can't be stopped.
I do think our laws should try to mitigate problems as best they can, that's why I call myself a progressive.

 

[CletusWilbury]

Yeah, they're great. Really opened my eyes to how everything we do is economics and how strongly people respond to incentives, good and bad.

As I recall, they speculated that showing people the lifestyles of the rich and famous made them realize what they didn't have and couldn't afford, which increased the chances they would steal in an effort to gain it.

Sounds a bit thin to me, but I don't have a better guess.

Of course the Freakonomics guys would never claim something like that as fact.

That sounds like a good guess.
Another is that reporting was becoming more efficient at the same time, using the same technologies.
Did they mention that angle?

 

[AYSM]

"Let's address technology instead since that old answering machine is pretty much history anyway."

Okay...address away.

Yesterday, I had to head by a brand new mega Wal-Mart so, on my way back I stopped in because our closer store was out of stock on an item...not uncommon.

Anyway...it was awesome...huge...well laid out.

Had a bunch of self checkouts on each end of a row of twelve cashier registers...the middle two #7 & 8 were open, #8 being their tobacco register...all 13 self serve were open...I think they called them "Pay & Go" or "Go With The Flow"...bwaaahahaha...anyway a different mindset to sell for sure.

Me, being an ornery old fart refuse to use these "self serve" without the help of a person check-outs. Many conversations in the past have indicated that they had problems and did require assistance quite often...so I got curious...on the way out I happened to run into an apparent boss...asked how they were working out mentioning my past conversation a bit...she was ready for combat...lol...told me they were much improved...98% trouble free and no...they don't cut down on manpower...in fact, she hired 24 new employee's because of them...pretty impressive.

So I inquired if these were to address technical issues requiring quite a bit of skill?

Oh no...the machines work great, they need to show people how to use them...I had also noticed that back in the line...they had a number of people offering to help those behind someone in line toward a self serve go with the flow and get on outa here education...the guy behind me smiled and declined...about my age...I went into an outspoken rendition as to my take on technology...I can become downright embarrassing to those with me if they aren't laughing their ass off...like when I was at a check-out a number of years back...thumbing through a "Route 66" calendar with a picture of Hoover Dam on it...say what? Hoover Dam is a long way from Route 66 in Kingman, where the store was...as all locals are well aware...then I turned to the back and saw it was "Made in China"...I went off rather loudly about how old Sam Walton is probably rolling over in his grave...recalling back how he started out with "Made in America"...and no wonder...blah blah blah...how could we expect the Chinese to know a damn thing about Route 66...etcetera and so on...flashback

Anyway, yesterday I thanked the nice lady for her time and left thinking about another flashback...these people are there to teach people to use this new technology...reminds me of the job my dad had with the USAID...he was a college professor of business and the government sent him to Africa to teach African's to be businessmen but most of all to teach teachers...in other words, his job was to lose his job...thoughts that make me go hmmm...

More to follow.

 

[CletusWilbury]

...
Oh no...the machines work great, they need to show people how to use them.....

Eventually everyone will know how to use the machines, and it's a labor saver, progress.

How do you like ATMs?

 

[Mycroft]

"Let's address technology instead since that old answering machine is pretty much history anyway."



Yesterday, I had to head by a brand new mega Wal-Mart so, on my way back I stopped in because our closer store was out of stock on an item...not uncommon.

Anyway...it was awesome...huge...well laid out.

Had a bunch of self checkouts on each end of a row of twelve cashier registers...the middle two #7 & 8 were open, #8 being their tobacco register...all 13 self serve were open...I think they called them "Pay & Go" or "Go With The Flow"...bwaaahahaha...anyway a different mindset to sell for sure.

Me, being an ornery old fart refuse to use these "self serve" without the help of a person check-outs. Many conversations in the past have indicated that they had problems and did require assistance quite often...so I got curious...on the way out I happened to run into an apparent boss...asked how they were working out mentioning my past conversation a bit...she was ready for combat...lol...told me they were much improved...98% trouble free and no...they don't cut down on manpower...in fact, she hired 24 new employee's because of them...pretty impressive.

So I inquired if these were to address technical issues requiring quite a bit of skill?

Oh no...the machines work great, they need to show people how to use them...I had also noticed that back in the line...they had a number of people offering to help those behind someone in line toward a self serve go with the flow and get on outa here education...the guy behind me smiled and declined...about my age...I went into an outspoken rendition as to my take on technology...I can become downright embarrassing to those with me if they aren't laughing their ass off...like when I was at a check-out a number of years back...thumbing through a "Route 66" calendar with a picture of Hoover Dam on it...say what? Hoover Dam is a long way from Route 66 in Kingman, where the store was...as all locals are well aware...then I turned to the back and saw it was "Made in China"...I went off rather loudly about how old Sam Walton is probably rolling over in his grave...recalling back how he started out with "Made in America"...and no wonder...blah blah blah...how could we expect the Chinese to know a damn thing about Route 66...etcetera and so on...flashback

Anyway, yesterday I thanked the nice lady for her time and left thinking about another flashback...these people are there to teach people to use this new technology...reminds me of the job my dad had with the USAID...he was a college professor of business and the government sent him to Africa to teach African's to be businessmen but most of all to teach teachers...in other words, his job was to lose his job...thoughts that make me go hmmm...

More to follow.

This is certainly a mildly entertaining stream of conscious you go going on. I hope you get to a point, though.

 

[CletusWilbury]

This is certainly a mildly entertaining stream of conscious you go going on. I hope you get to a point, though.

Or, just keep going AYSM.

I think his point is where are people going to work when their jobs are lost to technology?
And frustration with new technology.

My answer: Move to the city where people make the robots.

 

[WillyPete]

That sounds like a good guess.
Another is that reporting was becoming more efficient at the same time, using the same technologies.
Did they mention that angle?

It's been a while. I recall they hammered home the point that they were able to prove it via the statistics because different areas got television at different times, but they all showed a similar uptick in crime afterwards.